Down only 4 lbs in 2 months — is that a poor result?

[Flash-BCR]

BNLFL said:

I've brought this up over and over regarding what I call the baby doses. Sure, I get that some people choose them to keep side effects minimal. But it's hard to see the logic when the Lilly trials never reference these low doses at all. At 2mg, I dropped that much in water weight during the first week alone.

<<----Flash-BCR, now a team BNLFL 2mg starting dose devotee....

 

[woundcarping]

lessthanhalf said:

Zelmar702 said:

Just so you know — over on YT there's a physician who also uses GLP meds, Dr. Kevin Joseph, and he put out a video covering exactly this topic not long ago. The main takeaways are:

• Turning On the Glucagon Receptor: Retatrutide works as a triple agonist, hitting GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon [00:53]. Below 4 mg, only GIP and GLP-1 get activated, so it basically behaves like a pricey Tirzepatide [01:42]. The glucagon receptor, which drives greater fat burning and liver clearing, needs a higher concentration before it switches on, and clinical markers indicate it kicks in exactly at the 4 mg threshold [01:31, 03:35].
  
• Evidence That It's Active: According to Dr. Joseph, the mild effects that show up at 4 mg — a particular tingling of the skin (dysesthesia), a small rise in heart rate, and a 57% reduction in liver fat — act as clinical confirmation that the glucagon receptor is now engaged [02:15, 03:23].
  
• Remarkably Well Tolerated: Side effects at 4 mg of Retatrutide are extremely uncommon. In the trials, only 4.1% of participants dropped out because of side effects at 4 mg (practically the same as the 4.9% seen in the placebo arm), while the 12 mg dose had an 18% dropout rate [04:12, 04:29].

His overall message is that pushing the dose as high as possible isn't always necessary; at 4 mg a patient gets the distinct advantages of all three receptor targets safely, and tolerability stays on par with placebo [04:42, 05:40].

Apologies for drifting a bit off the main subject, but this particular guy comes up fairly often, and it looked like the OP was replying to something he'd said. In my view, what he claims isn't grounded in the science we actually have.

The notion that a drug only "turns on" once you hit some specific dose, say 4mg, is complete nonsense — that isn't how pharmacology works in general, and it isn't how incretin receptors and their agonists behave either. Holding a medical degree counts for nothing when someone gets the fundamentals of pharmacology wrong and doesn't bother reading the studies. As with every other GLP drug, reta's effects grow as the dose goes up, until a point where further increases stop adding useful benefit while possibly worsening side effects — and that point sits somewhere past 12mg.

There's nothing wrong with people sharing their personal takes on these medications, but once you're posting youtube videos and putting a Dr in front of your name, I think you take on an obligation to make sure what you're putting out there is scientifically accurate. I realize that's not really how the whole celebrity Doctor phenomenon in the US operates, where fame seems to correlate with how much BS gets said. Still, because of that Dr in front of the name, people are much more inclined to take his word for it, so it does matter.

The claim about effects only beginning at 4mg is especially strange, since reta — unlike sema or tirz — performs remarkably well at very low doses, where 1mg across a year produces an average of 9% weight loss, roughly matching the effect of 2.5-5mg of tirz. That makes reta at fairly low doses, hopefully with low side effect rates too, potentially a strong option for people using it for being overweight without needing to shed a lot of weight (as well as for those with severe obesity at higher doses). At 4mg it's more effective — no surprise there — with about 18% weight loss, and 12mg is more effective still, reaching up to 29% weight loss over a year. He isn't wrong that low doses of reta work pretty well, but the idea that glucagon receptors do nothing at 3mg and then abruptly kick in at 4mg simply isn't how the drug behaves. The examples he gives of effects that supposedly begin at 4mg are also invented out of nowhere. Dysesthesia/allodynia from reta is certainly dose related, but most people on 12mg don't experience it, and there's no particular dose at which it will or won't show up.

To answer the OP: low dose reta ( 1-4mg ) genuinely has a decent chance of getting you where you want to be, though it will take a year or a little longer. Assuming 1mg and 9% weight loss starting from a BMI of 28.3, you'd land at a bmi slightly above 25, and at 4mg with 18% you'd reach a bmi of 23. These are averages, of course, and responses to GLP drugs vary from person to person, but it's still helpful for setting reasonable expectations. Raising doses very slowly lowers the odds of sudden severe side effects, yet it can make weight loss slow enough that you feel like the progress you want to see isn't happening. Raising doses somewhat faster tends to deliver more satisfying weight loss sooner, but at the cost of greater risk of unexpected side effects. Unless you intend to climb all the way to 12mg just to fix a not-severe overweight problem a bit faster — which sounds like overkill — you're still looking at a year to get there. And if being overweight isn't causing you medical problems, staying conservative with dosing to keep risks as low as possible is probably the sensible approach.

Broadly speaking, I'm on board with that; though I'd drop the word "unexpected," because these side effects are pretty widely recognized.

My main point is this: moving up in dose more quickly raises the chance of side effects, yet serious adverse effects aren't guaranteed at any dose. Bumping a dose up step by step is not likely to produce major, lasting, notable, unforeseen discomfort.

When doses are low, a jump from 2mg to 3mg works out to a 50% increase, yet for most people the side effect impact appears negligible. Moving from 8mg to 12mg is that same 50% increase… I don't object to scaling the increase back to 2mg, but spending weeks going from 8mg to 9mg is more cautious than what my own side effects indicated was necessary.

Data from trials can help you estimate a weekly dose target when you're first starting. How you react — whether side effects show up or don't — as you begin can guide how fast to titrate. If your goal is only a 10% loss, there seems to be little reason to rush straight to 12mg. If a 35% loss is the goal, then 12mg becomes far more probable.

 

[YoYoFat]

ladyj779 said:

It really comes down to the weight you started at. When someone is overweight, the goal should be dropping .5-1% of body weight each week.

If that pace isn't happening for you, cutting your calories is the next step.

Get the loseit app, choose sedentary as your setting, and don't eat back the calories you burn exercising.

These meds make staying in a calorie deficit easier to handle, but it's completely possible to eat past them.

Honestly, no. Somewhere between .5 and 2.0 pounds per week is the usual range. At 4 pounds across two months, that works out to .5 pounds a week — which sits at the lower end of what's considered safe and steady.

 

[ladyj779]

YoYoFat said:

ladyj779 said:

It really comes down to the weight you started at. When someone is overweight, the goal should be dropping .5-1% of body weight each week.

If that pace isn't happening for you, cutting your calories is the next step.

Get the loseit app, choose sedentary as your setting, and don't eat back the calories you burn exercising.

These meds make staying in a calorie deficit easier to handle, but it's completely possible to eat past them.

Honestly, no. Somewhere between .5 and 2.0 pounds per week is the usual range. At 4 pounds across two months, that works out to .5 pounds a week — which sits at the lower end of what's considered safe and steady.

Maybe you should go back and read my message again?

The figure is expressed as a percentage rather than in lbs, since someone carrying more body weight can safely and sustainably drop more each week than a person carrying less. That is exactly why the real guidelines use percentages of body weight instead of fixed weights.

Maybe you misread or misunderstood my point.

 

[GLPFrodo]

I'd agree that the dosing is at a slow, cautious pace. On top of that, when you're working out and eating well, those 4 lbs might actually mean a lot — for instance, if you've dropped 4 lbs while putting on 4 lbs of muscle. But if you aren't doing that, or you're aware you're not changing your body composition through weight training and a high-protein diet, then it's definitely on the low side.

 

[jperiod]

Girl, same! My husband and my son began at the same time I did. I believe my husband has dropped 10-15 pounds. My 21 year old son has dropped 25! To keep side effects low, we started at .6mg twice a week, after 4 weeks went to .8mg 2x a week, and then not long ago went to 1 mg 2x a week. On the 2 mg total/week dose, the scale finally seems like it's starting to move for me, but I think I'll still bump to 2.5 total at my next 4 week mark. At least nothing has been gained, and I've been able to enjoy food like a normal person instead of obsessing about every carb and gaining anyway.

 

[BNLFL]

lilamae05111 said:


I gained 14 lbs my first month, despite working out , cardio and being in a caloric deficit. I was taking on a ton of water weight. Once i got the sodium and various water retention items going to my body in check , i dropped 45 lbs over the next three months. Give it time. Work the system because the system works.

Click to expand...

Personally I'd say that's too much, though your circumstances might be different from what I'm picturing.

(38) Is Losing Weight Too Fast Actually Bad? | GLP1Chat

 

[endlrls]

Zelmar702 said:

Just so you know — over on YT there's a physician who also uses GLP meds, Dr. Kevin Joseph, and he put out a video covering exactly this topic not long ago. The main takeaways are:

• Turning On the Glucagon Receptor: Retatrutide works as a triple agonist, hitting GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon [00:53]. Below 4 mg, only GIP and GLP-1 get activated, so it basically behaves like a pricey Tirzepatide [01:42]. The glucagon receptor, which drives greater fat burning and liver clearing, needs a higher concentration before it switches on, and clinical markers indicate it kicks in exactly at the 4 mg threshold [01:31, 03:35].
  
• Evidence That It's Active: According to Dr. Joseph, the mild effects that show up at 4 mg — a particular tingling of the skin (dysesthesia), a small rise in heart rate, and a 57% reduction in liver fat — act as clinical confirmation that the glucagon receptor is now engaged [02:15, 03:23].
  
• Remarkably Well Tolerated: Side effects at 4 mg of Retatrutide are extremely uncommon. In the trials, only 4.1% of participants dropped out because of side effects at 4 mg (practically the same as the 4.9% seen in the placebo arm), while the 12 mg dose had an 18% dropout rate [04:12, 04:29].

His overall message is that pushing the dose as high as possible isn't always necessary; at 4 mg a patient gets the distinct advantages of all three receptor targets safely, and tolerability stays on par with placebo [04:42, 05:40].

That guy has gone through the GLP1 experience personally too..

Before he dropped all that weight, his condition was REALLY poor (none of his metabolic markers were good).

An absolute wealth of knowledge

 

[tendency]

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Starting at a low dose and moving up gradually is something I think is a good approach. A number of people I know, myself included, dropped a lot of weight while on those small doses — though in those cases the amount was much greater than 4lb across 2 months.

Since 4lb in 2 months is all you've lost, my view is that you clearly should titrate up, provided the gear is legit and so on.

 

[endlrls]

lessthanhalf said:


Sorry, not exactly on topic, but I see this guy come up a fair bit, and the OP seemed to be responding to what he said. I do not think his opinions are based on the available science.

The idea that effects start at a certain dose, such as 4mg is just plain garbage, it is not how pharmacology in general or incretin receptors and their agonists work. The fact that he has a medical degree means nothing if he misunderstands basic principles of pharmacology, and does not read the studies. Like every other GLP drug, reta effects increase with dose to a point where eventually increasing doses have no extra useful effects, but might cause worse side effects and this dose is somewhere above 12mg.

People giving their opinions on these drugs is fine, but I think if you put out youtube videos and put a Dr in front of your name, you should feel obliged to make certain the information you present is scientifically correct. I know this is not really how the whole celebrity Doctor thing in the US works, where it seems like the more well known the more likely what they are saying is BS. But people are far more likely to believe what he is saying because of the Dr in front of the name so it does matter.

The thing about effects only starting at 4mg is extra weird given that reta unlike sema or tirz is really very good at super low doses, where 1mg over a year causes an average of 9% weight loss, around the effect of 2.5-5mg of tirz, and this makes reta at quite low doses with hopefully also low side effect rates, possibly a very good choice for those using it for being overweight without needing to lose lots of weight ( as well as for those with severe obesity at higher doses ) 4mg is more effective, no surprise with about 18% weight loss and 12mg more effective again at up to 29% weight loss over a year. He is not wrong about low doses of reta being pretty good, but the idea that at 3mg glucagon receptors do nothing , then suddenly start having effects at 4mg is just not how the drug works. His examples of effects that kick in at 4mg are also just pulled from thin air. Dysesthesia/allodynia from reta is definitely dose related, but the majority of people on 12mg do not have it , and there is no specific dose where it might or might not happen.

In response to the OP , low dose reta ( 1-4mg ) actually has a good chance of getting you where you want , but it will take a year or a bit more to get there. Assuming 1mg and 9% weight loss starting at a BMI of 28.3 , you should get to a bmi a bit over 25, and at 4mg and 18% should get you to a bmi of 23, of course these are averages, and everyone responds a bit differently to GLP drugs, but it is still useful to get an idea of what it is reasonable to expect. Going up doses super slow makes more sudden severe side effects less likely but can cause weight loss slow enough to feel like you are not getting the progress you want to see to feel like you are getting somewhere. Going up doses a bit faster is more likely to get you more satisfying weight loss results faster but at the cost of increased risks of unexpected side effects. But unless you want to push up doses all the way to 12mg to fix a not severe overweight problem a bit faster, which sounds a little like overkill, it is still going to take a year to get there. And assuming you do not have medical problems from being overweight , being conservative with dosing to keep risks as low as possible is probably a good idea.

Click to expand...

100% agree with this.

 

[lessthanhalf]

woundcarping said:

lessthanhalf said:

Zelmar702 said:

Just so you know — over on YT there's a physician who also uses GLP meds, Dr. Kevin Joseph, and he put out a video covering exactly this topic not long ago. The main takeaways are:

• Turning On the Glucagon Receptor: Retatrutide works as a triple agonist, hitting GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon [00:53]. Below 4 mg, only GIP and GLP-1 get activated, so it basically behaves like a pricey Tirzepatide [01:42]. The glucagon receptor, which drives greater fat burning and liver clearing, needs a higher concentration before it switches on, and clinical markers indicate it kicks in exactly at the 4 mg threshold [01:31, 03:35].
  
• Evidence That It's Active: According to Dr. Joseph, the mild effects that show up at 4 mg — a particular tingling of the skin (dysesthesia), a small rise in heart rate, and a 57% reduction in liver fat — act as clinical confirmation that the glucagon receptor is now engaged [02:15, 03:23].
  
• Remarkably Well Tolerated: Side effects at 4 mg of Retatrutide are extremely uncommon. In the trials, only 4.1% of participants dropped out because of side effects at 4 mg (practically the same as the 4.9% seen in the placebo arm), while the 12 mg dose had an 18% dropout rate [04:12, 04:29].

His overall message is that pushing the dose as high as possible isn't always necessary; at 4 mg a patient gets the distinct advantages of all three receptor targets safely, and tolerability stays on par with placebo [04:42, 05:40].

Apologies for drifting a bit off the main subject, but this particular guy comes up fairly often, and it looked like the OP was replying to something he'd said. In my view, what he claims isn't grounded in the science we actually have.

The notion that a drug only "turns on" once you hit some specific dose, say 4mg, is complete nonsense — that isn't how pharmacology works in general, and it isn't how incretin receptors and their agonists behave either. Holding a medical degree counts for nothing when someone gets the fundamentals of pharmacology wrong and doesn't bother reading the studies. As with every other GLP drug, reta's effects grow as the dose goes up, until a point where further increases stop adding useful benefit while possibly worsening side effects — and that point sits somewhere past 12mg.

There's nothing wrong with people sharing their personal takes on these medications, but once you're posting youtube videos and putting a Dr in front of your name, I think you take on an obligation to make sure what you're putting out there is scientifically accurate. I realize that's not really how the whole celebrity Doctor phenomenon in the US operates, where fame seems to correlate with how much BS gets said. Still, because of that Dr in front of the name, people are much more inclined to take his word for it, so it does matter.

The claim about effects only beginning at 4mg is especially strange, since reta — unlike sema or tirz — performs remarkably well at very low doses, where 1mg across a year produces an average of 9% weight loss, roughly matching the effect of 2.5-5mg of tirz. That makes reta at fairly low doses, hopefully with low side effect rates too, potentially a strong option for people using it for being overweight without needing to shed a lot of weight (as well as for those with severe obesity at higher doses). At 4mg it's more effective — no surprise there — with about 18% weight loss, and 12mg is more effective still, reaching up to 29% weight loss over a year. He isn't wrong that low doses of reta work pretty well, but the idea that glucagon receptors do nothing at 3mg and then abruptly kick in at 4mg simply isn't how the drug behaves. The examples he gives of effects that supposedly begin at 4mg are also invented out of nowhere. Dysesthesia/allodynia from reta is certainly dose related, but most people on 12mg don't experience it, and there's no particular dose at which it will or won't show up.

To answer the OP: low dose reta ( 1-4mg ) genuinely has a decent chance of getting you where you want to be, though it will take a year or a little longer. Assuming 1mg and 9% weight loss starting from a BMI of 28.3, you'd land at a bmi slightly above 25, and at 4mg with 18% you'd reach a bmi of 23. These are averages, of course, and responses to GLP drugs vary from person to person, but it's still helpful for setting reasonable expectations. Raising doses very slowly lowers the odds of sudden severe side effects, yet it can make weight loss slow enough that you feel like the progress you want to see isn't happening. Raising doses somewhat faster tends to deliver more satisfying weight loss sooner, but at the cost of greater risk of unexpected side effects. Unless you intend to climb all the way to 12mg just to fix a not-severe overweight problem a bit faster — which sounds like overkill — you're still looking at a year to get there. And if being overweight isn't causing you medical problems, staying conservative with dosing to keep risks as low as possible is probably the sensible approach.

Broadly speaking, I'm on board with that; though I'd drop the word "unexpected," because these side effects are pretty widely recognized.

My main point is this: moving up in dose more quickly raises the chance of side effects, yet serious adverse effects aren't guaranteed at any dose. Bumping a dose up step by step is not likely to produce major, lasting, notable, unforeseen discomfort.

When doses are low, a jump from 2mg to 3mg works out to a 50% increase, yet for most people the side effect impact appears negligible. Moving from 8mg to 12mg is that same 50% increase… I don't object to scaling the increase back to 2mg, but spending weeks going from 8mg to 9mg is more cautious than what my own side effects indicated was necessary.

Data from trials can help you estimate a weekly dose target when you're first starting. How you react — whether side effects show up or don't — as you begin can guide how fast to titrate. If your goal is only a 10% loss, there seems to be little reason to rush straight to 12mg. If a 35% loss is the goal, then 12mg becomes far more probable.

I'm with you that side effects will probably show up, at whatever dose triggers them, and the speed at which you reach that dose doesn't change things much. Titrating upward slowly enough for GI tolerance to outpace the dose increases isn't very likely. It does seem like the dose that brings on side effects varies a lot from person to person.

Vomiting tends to be the worst of the side effects, or even worse when it comes together with diarrhoea and leads to dehydration. That said, even a decent amount of nausea can be quite unpleasant and disruptive. Raising doses gradually, in my view, does make sudden more severe side effects less likely, since usually if mild nausea appears at 2 or 4 mg, then the next increase will probably make it worse, so those milder side effects can serve as a signal for dose increases, mostly to slow down or pause increasing for a while. And generally, the smaller each dose increase, the lower the chance of being hit by more severe sudden side effects. Personally I tend to use very frequent, like every second day, very small doses to step up, which works quite well.

For most people most of the time the standard drug company recommendations are fine, except for ozempic, where I think combined with its fairly high rates of side effects the advised dose increases are too large, especially from 0.5mg to 1mg. Otherwise I would agree with everything you say about increasing reta doses.

 

[Imfrijole]

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Honestly, 4 lbs doesn't sound like much, though I'm not sure what kind of result you were hoping for. You're still below 2 mg, and that's the dose where participants in the clinical trials begin.

 

[Jimmymiro12]

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Have you been tracking your body measurements? Those give you a far better sense of progress than a single figure on the scale.

 

[Mood]

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Some folks have raised the question, yet I'm not certain I've come across a reply about your target amount of weight to drop (CW/GW)? Plus, what's the source of your reta, and has it undergone testing to confirm you're actually receiving the dose you believe you are? Also, you're still on a relatively low dose.

Personally, I didn't have a lot to shed, and I'm using reta for recomp rather than pure weight loss. At first I did drop a fair bit of weight (mostly water), but then it plateaued and my weight has stayed pretty steady for a number of weeks. Even so, during that stretch I've tightened my belt by 2 notches and I look noticeably leaner. So try not to fixate only on the scale, especially if you're seeing other wins like looser clothing, etc.

And above all, glp-1s are merely tools — you still have to work out and eat properly (both quality and quantity). What you get out depends on what you put in.

 

[woundcarping]

lessthanhalf said:

woundcarping said:

lessthanhalf said:

Zelmar702 said:

Just so you know — over on YT there's a physician who also uses GLP meds, Dr. Kevin Joseph, and he put out a video covering exactly this topic not long ago. The main takeaways are:

• Turning On the Glucagon Receptor: Retatrutide works as a triple agonist, hitting GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon [00:53]. Below 4 mg, only GIP and GLP-1 get activated, so it basically behaves like a pricey Tirzepatide [01:42]. The glucagon receptor, which drives greater fat burning and liver clearing, needs a higher concentration before it switches on, and clinical markers indicate it kicks in exactly at the 4 mg threshold [01:31, 03:35].
  
• Evidence That It's Active: According to Dr. Joseph, the mild effects that show up at 4 mg — a particular tingling of the skin (dysesthesia), a small rise in heart rate, and a 57% reduction in liver fat — act as clinical confirmation that the glucagon receptor is now engaged [02:15, 03:23].
  
• Remarkably Well Tolerated: Side effects at 4 mg of Retatrutide are extremely uncommon. In the trials, only 4.1% of participants dropped out because of side effects at 4 mg (practically the same as the 4.9% seen in the placebo arm), while the 12 mg dose had an 18% dropout rate [04:12, 04:29].

His overall message is that pushing the dose as high as possible isn't always necessary; at 4 mg a patient gets the distinct advantages of all three receptor targets safely, and tolerability stays on par with placebo [04:42, 05:40].

Apologies for drifting a bit off the main subject, but this particular guy comes up fairly often, and it looked like the OP was replying to something he'd said. In my view, what he claims isn't grounded in the science we actually have.

The notion that a drug only "turns on" once you hit some specific dose, say 4mg, is complete nonsense — that isn't how pharmacology works in general, and it isn't how incretin receptors and their agonists behave either. Holding a medical degree counts for nothing when someone gets the fundamentals of pharmacology wrong and doesn't bother reading the studies. As with every other GLP drug, reta's effects grow as the dose goes up, until a point where further increases stop adding useful benefit while possibly worsening side effects — and that point sits somewhere past 12mg.

There's nothing wrong with people sharing their personal takes on these medications, but once you're posting youtube videos and putting a Dr in front of your name, I think you take on an obligation to make sure what you're putting out there is scientifically accurate. I realize that's not really how the whole celebrity Doctor phenomenon in the US operates, where fame seems to correlate with how much BS gets said. Still, because of that Dr in front of the name, people are much more inclined to take his word for it, so it does matter.

The claim about effects only beginning at 4mg is especially strange, since reta — unlike sema or tirz — performs remarkably well at very low doses, where 1mg across a year produces an average of 9% weight loss, roughly matching the effect of 2.5-5mg of tirz. That makes reta at fairly low doses, hopefully with low side effect rates too, potentially a strong option for people using it for being overweight without needing to shed a lot of weight (as well as for those with severe obesity at higher doses). At 4mg it's more effective — no surprise there — with about 18% weight loss, and 12mg is more effective still, reaching up to 29% weight loss over a year. He isn't wrong that low doses of reta work pretty well, but the idea that glucagon receptors do nothing at 3mg and then abruptly kick in at 4mg simply isn't how the drug behaves. The examples he gives of effects that supposedly begin at 4mg are also invented out of nowhere. Dysesthesia/allodynia from reta is certainly dose related, but most people on 12mg don't experience it, and there's no particular dose at which it will or won't show up.

To answer the OP: low dose reta ( 1-4mg ) genuinely has a decent chance of getting you where you want to be, though it will take a year or a little longer. Assuming 1mg and 9% weight loss starting from a BMI of 28.3, you'd land at a bmi slightly above 25, and at 4mg with 18% you'd reach a bmi of 23. These are averages, of course, and responses to GLP drugs vary from person to person, but it's still helpful for setting reasonable expectations. Raising doses very slowly lowers the odds of sudden severe side effects, yet it can make weight loss slow enough that you feel like the progress you want to see isn't happening. Raising doses somewhat faster tends to deliver more satisfying weight loss sooner, but at the cost of greater risk of unexpected side effects. Unless you intend to climb all the way to 12mg just to fix a not-severe overweight problem a bit faster — which sounds like overkill — you're still looking at a year to get there. And if being overweight isn't causing you medical problems, staying conservative with dosing to keep risks as low as possible is probably the sensible approach.

Broadly speaking, I'm on board with that; though I'd drop the word "unexpected," because these side effects are pretty widely recognized.

My main point is this: moving up in dose more quickly raises the chance of side effects, yet serious adverse effects aren't guaranteed at any dose. Bumping a dose up step by step is not likely to produce major, lasting, notable, unforeseen discomfort.

When doses are low, a jump from 2mg to 3mg works out to a 50% increase, yet for most people the side effect impact appears negligible. Moving from 8mg to 12mg is that same 50% increase… I don't object to scaling the increase back to 2mg, but spending weeks going from 8mg to 9mg is more cautious than what my own side effects indicated was necessary.

Data from trials can help you estimate a weekly dose target when you're first starting. How you react — whether side effects show up or don't — as you begin can guide how fast to titrate. If your goal is only a 10% loss, there seems to be little reason to rush straight to 12mg. If a 35% loss is the goal, then 12mg becomes far more probable.

I'm with you that side effects will probably show up, at whatever dose triggers them, and the speed at which you reach that dose doesn't change things much. Titrating upward slowly enough for GI tolerance to outpace the dose increases isn't very likely. It does seem like the dose that brings on side effects varies a lot from person to person.

Vomiting tends to be the worst of the side effects, or even worse when it comes together with diarrhoea and leads to dehydration. That said, even a decent amount of nausea can be quite unpleasant and disruptive. Raising doses gradually, in my view, does make sudden more severe side effects less likely, since usually if mild nausea appears at 2 or 4 mg, then the next increase will probably make it worse, so those milder side effects can serve as a signal for dose increases, mostly to slow down or pause increasing for a while. And generally, the smaller each dose increase, the lower the chance of being hit by more severe sudden side effects. Personally I tend to use very frequent, like every second day, very small doses to step up, which works quite well.

For most people most of the time the standard drug company recommendations are fine, except for ozempic, where I think combined with its fairly high rates of side effects the advised dose increases are too large, especially from 0.5mg to 1mg. Otherwise I would agree with everything you say about increasing reta doses.

My original plan was to add .5mg of Sema alongside my Reta at the start, dividing it into two .25mg doses each week. When I took that first .25mg dose, I figured it would feel similar to Tirz... nope!

The following day I took my usual Reta dose, and after that I had a couple of days of feeling the worst I've ever felt from peptides. My next Reta dose ended up a day late, and I waited 9 days before my next Sema dose, which was only .125mg. I ended up going with .125mg 2x weekly. At this point I've done 10 Sema doses and the stack seems to have mostly leveled out for me.

 

[lessthanhalf]

Out of every GLP I've used, sema was the sole one that gave me malaise — just a mild, unpleasant, low-grade sense of feeling a bit sick, similar to a mild viral infection. I don't experience that with reta, tirz or cagri.

 

[sunnygirl]

Mood said:

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Some folks have raised the question, yet I'm not certain I've come across a reply about your target amount of weight to drop (CW/GW)? Plus, what's the source of your reta, and has it undergone testing to confirm you're actually receiving the dose you believe you are? Also, you're still on a relatively low dose.

Personally, I didn't have a lot to shed, and I'm using reta for recomp rather than pure weight loss. At first I did drop a fair bit of weight (mostly water), but then it plateaued and my weight has stayed pretty steady for a number of weeks. Even so, during that stretch I've tightened my belt by 2 notches and I look noticeably leaner. So try not to fixate only on the scale, especially if you're seeing other wins like looser clothing, etc.

And above all, glp-1s are merely tools — you still have to work out and eat properly (both quality and quantity). What you get out depends on what you put in.

I'm at 170 lbs, and my goal weight is 140. I can't talk about where it came from, but it's a well-known spot that folks on here use. After I made that post, I went ahead with my next dose and bumped it up to 2.0mg. I've been snapping photos to track how things are going, but honestly I just look less puffy rather than actually different. My eating has improved a LOT since I started reta — even at the lower doses my appetite shifted. But everyone told me my dose was low, so I get that each person's body responds differently.

A bunch of people were suggesting to begin at a low dose, and they mentioned still dropping a significant amount of weight even on small doses of reta. That's the reason I went with the more cautious route. I don't regret starting low one bit, though maybe I was expecting a bit more than I should have lol. It's fine, I'll just wait and see what happens now that my dose is going up.

 

[ladyj779]

sunnygirl said:

Mood said:

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Some folks have raised the question, yet I'm not certain I've come across a reply about your target amount of weight to drop (CW/GW)? Plus, what's the source of your reta, and has it undergone testing to confirm you're actually receiving the dose you believe you are? Also, you're still on a relatively low dose.

Personally, I didn't have a lot to shed, and I'm using reta for recomp rather than pure weight loss. At first I did drop a fair bit of weight (mostly water), but then it plateaued and my weight has stayed pretty steady for a number of weeks. Even so, during that stretch I've tightened my belt by 2 notches and I look noticeably leaner. So try not to fixate only on the scale, especially if you're seeing other wins like looser clothing, etc.

And above all, glp-1s are merely tools — you still have to work out and eat properly (both quality and quantity). What you get out depends on what you put in.

I'm at 170 lbs, and my goal weight is 140. I can't talk about where it came from, but it's a well-known spot that folks on here use. After I made that post, I went ahead with my next dose and bumped it up to 2.0mg. I've been snapping photos to track how things are going, but honestly I just look less puffy rather than actually different. My eating has improved a LOT since I started reta — even at the lower doses my appetite shifted. But everyone told me my dose was low, so I get that each person's body responds differently.

A bunch of people were suggesting to begin at a low dose, and they mentioned still dropping a significant amount of weight even on small doses of reta. That's the reason I went with the more cautious route. I don't regret starting low one bit, though maybe I was expecting a bit more than I should have lol. It's fine, I'll just wait and see what happens now that my dose is going up.

Choosing better foods is a great step! That said, weight loss happens when you take in fewer calories than your body requires to stay at its current weight.

If you've already been counting calories, that's great news! It means you now know your maintenance level. From there, cut your daily intake by a meaningful amount. And if calorie tracking isn't something you've been doing, now's the time to begin.

 

[BNLFL]

sunnygirl said:

Mood said:

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Some folks have raised the question, yet I'm not certain I've come across a reply about your target amount of weight to drop (CW/GW)? Plus, what's the source of your reta, and has it undergone testing to confirm you're actually receiving the dose you believe you are? Also, you're still on a relatively low dose.

Personally, I didn't have a lot to shed, and I'm using reta for recomp rather than pure weight loss. At first I did drop a fair bit of weight (mostly water), but then it plateaued and my weight has stayed pretty steady for a number of weeks. Even so, during that stretch I've tightened my belt by 2 notches and I look noticeably leaner. So try not to fixate only on the scale, especially if you're seeing other wins like looser clothing, etc.

And above all, glp-1s are merely tools — you still have to work out and eat properly (both quality and quantity). What you get out depends on what you put in.

I'm at 170 lbs, and my goal weight is 140. I can't talk about where it came from, but it's a well-known spot that folks on here use. After I made that post, I went ahead with my next dose and bumped it up to 2.0mg. I've been snapping photos to track how things are going, but honestly I just look less puffy rather than actually different. My eating has improved a LOT since I started reta — even at the lower doses my appetite shifted. But everyone told me my dose was low, so I get that each person's body responds differently.

A bunch of people were suggesting to begin at a low dose, and they mentioned still dropping a significant amount of weight even on small doses of reta. That's the reason I went with the more cautious route. I don't regret starting low one bit, though maybe I was expecting a bit more than I should have lol. It's fine, I'll just wait and see what happens now that my dose is going up.

Keep taking the 2mg for a full 4 weeks, after that... move to 4mg, and that's the point where weight changes typically begin to show.

 

[Mood]

sunnygirl said:

Mood said:

sunnygirl said:

Hey everyone! I began reta in may, and it's july now. The scale has moved just 4 pounds. I want to stay optimistic about this journey, but 4lbs seems low for 2 months. Should I be considering a switch to triz already, or is it too soon and I should stick with it longer?

Here's my dosing so far, taken once a week:

first dose: 0.5 mg

Second dose, 0.5 mg

Third dose, 1.0 mg

Fourth dose, 1.0 mg

Fifth dose, 1.0 mg

Sixth dose, 1.5 mg

Seventh dose, 1.5 mg

Some folks have raised the question, yet I'm not certain I've come across a reply about your target amount of weight to drop (CW/GW)? Plus, what's the source of your reta, and has it undergone testing to confirm you're actually receiving the dose you believe you are? Also, you're still on a relatively low dose.

Personally, I didn't have a lot to shed, and I'm using reta for recomp rather than pure weight loss. At first I did drop a fair bit of weight (mostly water), but then it plateaued and my weight has stayed pretty steady for a number of weeks. Even so, during that stretch I've tightened my belt by 2 notches and I look noticeably leaner. So try not to fixate only on the scale, especially if you're seeing other wins like looser clothing, etc.

And above all, glp-1s are merely tools — you still have to work out and eat properly (both quality and quantity). What you get out depends on what you put in.

I'm at 170 lbs, and my goal weight is 140. I can't talk about where it came from, but it's a well-known spot that folks on here use. After I made that post, I went ahead with my next dose and bumped it up to 2.0mg. I've been snapping photos to track how things are going, but honestly I just look less puffy rather than actually different. My eating has improved a LOT since I started reta — even at the lower doses my appetite shifted. But everyone told me my dose was low, so I get that each person's body responds differently.

A bunch of people were suggesting to begin at a low dose, and they mentioned still dropping a significant amount of weight even on small doses of reta. That's the reason I went with the more cautious route. I don't regret starting low one bit, though maybe I was expecting a bit more than I should have lol. It's fine, I'll just wait and see what happens now that my dose is going up.

Each person's response is going to be different. For me, the starting point was 0.5mg/E3D and I increased the dose from there. Right now I'm on 2mg/E3D, though what I'm aiming for isn't the same as what you're aiming for. That said, like several others have pointed out, tracking your calories matters if you aren't doing it yet. Improving your diet is great and helps in general, but the scale won't move if you're still at maintenance or above it.

What I'd suggest is plugging your details (BW, age, activity level, etc.) into a TDEE calculator so you can see roughly where your maintenance sits, then target roughly 500 fewer calories each day. Also, if you're not working out, adding some weight training would be worth it — it helps limit possible muscle loss and gives your weight loss a small extra push.