Can Overeating Cancel Out Reta's Effects?

[woundcarping]

5byfive said:


You can disagree with any or all of that, and he may have phrased it poorly, but to say that an option that you disagree with is ridiculous is conceited and unhelpful.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight: labeling a point "ridiculous" counts as arrogant and useless, yet 24 hours earlier it was fine to describe arguments as "half-baked," "crack-pot," "tinfoil hat," and "battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

5byfive said:


I guarentee I understand money and monetary policy better than you do (I even have a fancy graduate degree to back that up). You don't win an argument with condescension and half-

baked, crack-pot arguments. Not that you have even made an argument. You have just decreed what everyone must do from under your tinfoil hat.

Anyway, that's enough of this. Its the old 'battle of wits with an unarmed opponent' and I'm already bored.

Click to expand...

Yet when I flag cheaperseeker for giving this "half-baked, crack-pot" guidance:

cheaperseeker said:

Retatrutide isn't exactly famous for killing hunger. If dropping pounds is your priority, tirzepatide could be a better pick — or perhaps combining both compounds.

cheaperseeker said:

Retatrutide isn't exactly famous for killing hunger. If dropping pounds is your priority, tirzepatide could be a better pick — or perhaps combining both compounds.

I'm somehow failing the original poster by saying it makes no sense to push the peptide with the lower proven average weight-loss result when the person explicitly wants maximum weight loss. And it's even less helpful because that guidance comes from someone with zero relevant experience.

At the same time, what I actually told the original poster was:

woundcarping said:

cheaperseeker said:

Retatrutide isn't exactly famous for killing hunger. If dropping pounds is your priority, tirzepatide could be a better pick — or perhaps combining both compounds.

“If weight loss is your main goal,” you're telling people to pick something that clinical evidence shows is far less effective for shedding pounds.

That advice makes no sense.

iwillloseweight said:

I've spent a month on Reta, currently at 2mg, and I doubt the kit I've got is a poor one. My intake has gone down, yet I know I could make better food choices, and emotional eating is a genuine issue. The food noise has been intense, particularly over the past 2 weeks. Beyond roughly 72 hrs, appetite suppression isn't very powerful. Is it possible I'm simply not experiencing results because I'm eating past the medication? Another post I saw mentioned that strong suppression might not kick in until 4mg? I don't know, I'm open to ideas

Edit: In my opinion, I have a fairly trustworthy R10 kit

I don't know your situation or your target, but a month at 2mg… if dropping weight is what you're after and you want direction, maybe just stick to the dosing protocols from the clinical trials.

That's precise, useful, correct, and to the point... Having used both and stacked Tirz with Reta, I'm speaking from knowledge plus real-world experience.

Then you list a series of reasons Tirz might beat Reta, but you never counter the fact that Reta's clinical data shows it outperforms Tirz on the specific endpoint of average weight loss. There are confounding and mitigating factors that could shift which path is genuinely "best," but I already covered that gap when I said I didn't know where the original poster stood or where they were headed.

5byfive said:


That is totally broscience. We do not know that at all. 1st of all Tirz does not attack mucsle. There is absolutely nothing to suggest in any way that it does. We have no idea when you control for weight loss that Reta is any better. The information does not exist. We do know that more rapid weight loss tends to cause more muscle loss. We have no scientific reason to believe that this will not remain true.

Click to expand...

You keep up your generous tone with this remark, and I don't specifically object to anything you wrote here. The funny part is that in your earlier post you stated, "If you're concerned about maintaining muscle mass, Reta may not be the best option." and "We don't know for sure, but some of the other benefits of GLPs, like reducing inflammation, may be better with Tirz." which as far as I know appear in no study directly comparing Reta with Tirz... they're your own brand of "bro science."

You also bring up appetite suppression and food noise, which I don't think were trial endpoints, unlike weight loss... while that's reasonable, it doesn't overturn the clinical finding that people on 12mg of Reta for a comparable period lost roughly ~35% more weight on average than those on 15mg of Tirz.

 

[song writer]

Rosco P. Coltrane said:

At 2mg, that's a pretty small amount. My advice would be to continue increasing it. The real change only became apparent for me once I reached 5-6mgs.

Suppose the pounds are dropping while on 2mg, say after 6 weeks, having begun at .5 — wouldn't that count as success? All while keeping the diet clean and lifting weights.

 

[woundcarping]

HouseCat said:

iwillloseweight said:

I've spent a month on Reta, currently at 2mg, and I doubt the kit I've got is a poor one. My intake has gone down, yet I know I could make better food choices, and emotional eating is a genuine issue. The food noise has been intense, particularly over the past 2 weeks. Beyond roughly 72 hrs, appetite suppression isn't very powerful. Is it possible I'm simply not experiencing results because I'm eating past the medication? Another post I saw mentioned that strong suppression might not kick in until 4mg? I don't know, I'm open to ideas

Edit: In my opinion, I have a fairly trustworthy R10 kit

woundcarping said:

cheaperseeker said:

Retatrutide isn't exactly famous for killing hunger. If dropping pounds is your priority, tirzepatide could be a better pick — or perhaps combining both compounds.

“If weight loss is your main goal,” you're telling people to pick something that clinical evidence shows is far less effective for shedding pounds.

That advice makes no sense.

iwillloseweight said:

I've spent a month on Reta, currently at 2mg, and I doubt the kit I've got is a poor one. My intake has gone down, yet I know I could make better food choices, and emotional eating is a genuine issue. The food noise has been intense, particularly over the past 2 weeks. Beyond roughly 72 hrs, appetite suppression isn't very powerful. Is it possible I'm simply not experiencing results because I'm eating past the medication? Another post I saw mentioned that strong suppression might not kick in until 4mg? I don't know, I'm open to ideas

Edit: In my opinion, I have a fairly trustworthy R10 kit

I don't know your situation or your target, but a month at 2mg… if dropping weight is what you're after and you want direction, maybe just stick to the dosing protocols from the clinical trials.

Your tone has been covered by others, so I’ll leave it there. There’s no rush—feel free to read:

View attachment 10473

Good observation... in case you missed it, the "ridiculous" comment I made was aimed squarely at cheaperseeker's suggestion. As for the original poster, my response sits beneath the quote from them.

 

[song writer]

You should be able to settle into a routine with reta. Just keep in mind that eating clean and doing strength training are helpful.

 

[cheaperseeker]

woundcarping said:


To make sure I understand, calling an argument “ridiculous” is conceited and unhelpful, but the day before it was acceptable to call arguments “half-baked,” “crack-pot,” “tinfoil hat,” and “battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

But when I call out cheaperseeker for this "half-baked, crack-pot" advice:

I'm being unhelpful to the original poster for pointing out that it’s ridiculous to recommend the peptide with the smaller demonstrated average weight-loss effect when the stated goal is maximizing weight loss. Further to the point of being unhelpful is the advice is coming from someone with no experience related to their advice.

Meanwhile, my actual advice to the original poster was:

Which is specific, helpful, accurate, and succinct... Since I've taken both and stacked Tirz and Reta, it's based on both understanding and actual experience.

Then you give a procession of reasons why Tirz could be a better choice than Reta, without refuting the point that Reta's clinical data shows it to be superior to Tirz for the specific end point of average weight loss. There are mitigating and confounding factors that could make a material change in the "best" path, but I conveniently addressed that unknown when I said I had no idea of where the original poster was or where they wanted to be.

You continue your gracious streak with this comment, and I don't disagree specifically with anything you said in this post. The irony is that in your earlier post you said, "If you're concerned about maintaining muscle mass, Reta may not be the best option." and "We don't know for sure, but some of the other benefits of GLPs, like reducing inflammation, may be better with Tirz." which to my knowledge are not found in any studies comparing Reta to Tirz... they're your chosen variety of "bro science."

You also talk about appetite suppression and food noise, which I don't believe were endpoints in the trials, unlike weight loss... while reasonable, they don't refute the clinical observation that people on 12mg of Reta for a similar duration lost on average ~35% more weight than people on 15mg of Tirz.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, what I meant was that I have never combined tirz and reta—not that I have never taken reta.

That said, offering guidance grounded in education and research is completely valid. If it weren't, doctors would need to personally trial every drug before they could write a prescription.

 

[woundcarping]

cheaperseeker said:


To be clear, I was saying that I have never stacked tirz and reta, not that I have never used reta.

Even so, it's perfectly reasonable to give advice based on education and research. Otherwise, medical providers would have to try every medication before they were allowed to prescribe them.

Click to expand...

I'm with you — you don't need firsthand experience to offer solid guidance. I'd genuinely like to see the reasoning behind calling Tirzepatide the superior pick when the aim is to lose as much weight as possible.

Back when I was on Tirz with that exact aim, the published data pointed to Reta being more effective on average than Tirz, so I made the switch from Tirz to Reta. After that, Phase 3 headline data came out, and they made the efficacy gap between them even clearer.

As for my own numbers: 30 weeks/210 days into peptides, I've dropped 72lb, which is 25.5%. My first DEXA was 23 weeks back, my most recent DEXA was 5 weeks back, and my next DEXA falls on Monday week. From my first to my last DEXA, I shed 39lb and lost under 2lb of lean mass. I'm expecting that lean loss figure to be higher on next week's scan.

 

[cheaperseeker]

woundcarping said:


I agree, experience isn’t required to give good advice. I’m open to seeing the logic that shows Tirzepatide is the better recommendation when the stated goal is maximizing weight loss.

When I started on Tirz and had that same goal, I found that, based on the published data, Reta was more effective on average than Tirz, leading me to switch from Tirz to Reta. Since then, Phase 3 headline data have been released, further illustrating the chasm of efficacy.

From my own results, since starting peptides 30 weeks/210 days ago, I'm down 72lb, or 25.5%. My first DEXA was 23 weeks ago, my last DEXA was 5 weeks ago, and my next DEXA is Monday week. Between my first and last DEXA, I lost 39lb while losing less than 2lb of lean mass. I expect that lean loss to have increased in next week's scan.

Click to expand...

I'm not here to talk you into accepting my tirz claim. What I'm getting at is that you can hold a different view without treating the other person badly.

 

[woundcarping]

cheaperseeker said:


I'm not trying to convince you to believe what I said about tirz. My point to you is that you can disagree without being rude to the person you disagree with.

Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference between someone challenging your idea and someone attacking you personally, then we're not here for the same thing. When it comes to learning, I checked my emotions at the door along with my fat suit.

 

[5byfive]

woundcarping said:


To make sure I understand, calling an argument “ridiculous” is conceited and unhelpful, but the day before it was acceptable to call arguments “half-baked,” “crack-pot,” “tinfoil hat,” and “battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

Click to expand...

You're clearly still upset about being challenged on how you acted, but there's a distinction here: being short with someone who was only trying to help and then firing back is one thing, while insisting that everyone has to swallow your view and follow your instructions is something else. If you put up an opinion I don't share, my default is to stay polite. If instead you tell people they must treat your claims as fact and act the way you dictate, my restraint is likely to wear thinner.

woundcarping said:


You continue your gracious streak with this comment, and I don't disagree specifically with anything you said in this post. The irony is that in your earlier post you said, "If you're concerned about maintaining muscle mass, Reta may not be the best option." and "We don't know for sure, but some of the other benefits of GLPs, like reducing inflammation, may be better with Tirz." which to my knowledge are not found in any studies comparing Reta to Tirz... they're your chosen variety of "bro science."

Click to expand...

The phrases "We don't know for sure" and "There are mechanistic reasons to think so" — the second of which you trimmed out — should make plain that I wasn't offering a clinical fact. When I write something, I make an effort to flag whether it's established fact or just my take. I generally steer away from absolutes on most subjects. There's plenty I do know, but not everything, and I try to word my posts with that in mind.

Honestly, though, your points don't strike me as carrying much weight.

If my posts bother you this much, the ignore button is right there — go ahead and use it.

 

[woundcarping]

Aren't there also mechanistic grounds for believing Reta spares lean mass more than Sema or Tirz? Specifically, glucagon helping with fat mobilization, supporting hepatic lipolysis, and raising caloric expenditure, as opposed to shedding pounds "only" through appetite suppression that lowers the calories taken in.

Both ways are speculation; his was definitely put less gracefully, but no clinical demonstration has shown either peptide to be superior to the other regarding lean sparing, which makes either assumption conjecture. By your standard, labeling his take bro science isn't rude, yet calling something ridiculous is.



You've called me conceited, unhelpful, and "struggling so much with [your] content," suggested I twisted your words to prop up my claims, listed reasons Tirz might beat Reta in scenarios other than maximizing weight loss, and time and again brushed aside my position. But for all that writing, you still haven't said why my original premise is wrong. Rather, you've kept arguing around it while the plain point stays the same: the trial data available indicate Reta yields substantially greater average weight loss than Tirz.

With all your degrees and professional expertise, I thought you'd engage more with the substance of the position instead of trying to undermine it through delivery, hypothetical situations beyond the scope, and the insinuation that I just can't handle your content.

Meanwhile, the OP apparently hasn't been on 2mg for a month:



Which brings me back to what I first advised them, including my mistaken assumption:



Time to go have fun in the sun

 

[5byfive]

That is a legitimate angle worth exploring. If you were able to move past feeling offended about being challenged, we might get back to a productive exchange instead of trading jabs with no purpose.

I can picture Reta preserving muscle better for certain individuals. When a person is disciplined with how they eat, they could probably take in more protein while on Reta, which might help. That said, someone who prioritizes protein on Tirz might achieve comparable outcomes, though Reta could make it less of a struggle.

When it comes to the typical user, who probably isn't making great food choices, I doubt they'd hold onto muscle on Reta anywhere near as effectively as they would on Tirz. Proper nutrition plus committed resistance training can drive quicker fat loss with less muscle being lost, but once again, I don't picture the average GLP user doing what's required to preserve muscle during a steep deficit. We won't have real answers for a long while, probably years, so everything stays speculative for now.

 

[lessthanhalf]

Gr33dyOctopus said:

BNLFL said:

Gr33dyOctopus said:

Chili777 said:

lessthanhalf said:

When it comes to side effects, my perspective is that mild ones at a given dose almost always get worse when you go higher, so it’s wise to increase slowly or hold off. On the other hand, if a dose gives you no effects or side effects, then future increases are less likely to cause problems. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but there’s no reason to avoid the standard 2,4,6,9,12mg schedule with increases every 4 weeks. If you’re worried, going up by 1mg every 2 weeks is essentially the same and a bit safer.

Glad to see you again

mufucka!!! glad you're back at under 50%, is Miss gizmo still MIA? I haven't looked

Was she also removed?

song writer said:

iwillloseweight said:

song writer said:

iwillloseweight said:

I've spent a month on Reta, currently at 2mg, and I doubt the kit I've got is a poor one. My intake has gone down, yet I know I could make better food choices, and emotional eating is a genuine issue. The food noise has been intense, particularly over the past 2 weeks. Beyond roughly 72 hrs, appetite suppression isn't very powerful. Is it possible I'm simply not experiencing results because I'm eating past the medication? Another post I saw mentioned that strong suppression might not kick in until 4mg? I don't know, I'm open to ideas

Edit: In my opinion, I have a fairly trustworthy R10 kit

Is the plan to begin at 2mg weekly? And food noise is still present?

Because side effects worried me, my starting dose was tiny. I stayed at 1 mg for the first 2 weeks, then moved up to 2 mg when week 3 began.

From what I understand, the optimal dose is the smallest one that gets results. I believe the trials began at 2mg. I'm not certain about reta, though. With Trizepatide, .5 felt like a lot.

From everything I've reviewed, Lilly recommends 2mg as the starting dose across all the trials.

she vanished around the same period she was in that political chat.

She likely assumed she'd been banned for a long stretch, same as Lessthan. In reality they hadn't been, but that's what he believed!

I was completely in the dark about what was happening, and I had to figure out on my own how to even access the site. I sent an email asking for help, got nothing back, and concluded it must be a permanent situation. After reading through the rules thoroughly, I found zero mention of bans or any guidance on coming back, so I went ahead and created a fresh account. That got me banned for an additional week, and I'm not sure how I was expected to know that wasn't allowed. Still, at least now I finally understand what was going on.

 

[Jimothy82]

ALVJAY said:

Appetite suppression didn't kick in for me until I reached roughly 5-6mg/week. On top of that, right when I began, I dealt with strong sugar cravings—something that seems to be a typical experience.

Thanks for posting — that helps put my mind at ease! I'm only 5mg in so far, and it seems like the sweet cravings are starting to fade