Reta isn't curbing my appetite

[darkreta120]

Looking for input on how Reta affects appetite. I'm in my 4th week of using it. During week 1 I took .5mg, then 1mg in week 2, and 2mg for weeks 3 and 4. Only in that opening week did I notice any hunger reduction; after that, nothing. I'm considering dividing my doses into half-week intervals. Some folks mention tirz is more effective for appetite control, so would introducing a low dose of tirz now be premature? Curious if others have experienced something like this.

 

[woundcarping]

The thread title tells you what the dose is.

Raise it.

Take the energy I saved and dig into the forum and the useful search function.

 

[BNLFL]

woundcarping said:

The thread title tells you what the dose is.

Raise it.

Take the energy I saved and dig into the forum and the useful search function.

Building on his point: give each dose a full 4 weeks before judging it. My suggestion would be to begin at 2mg. I stayed on every dose for a minimum of 4 weeks, and things went smoothly for us. That said, it's your call.

 

[5byfive]

I already mentioned this in a different thread. When appetite suppression is the main thing you're after, Tirz does that job better than Reta, so Reta isn't the right med for it. Because suppressing appetite isn't one of Reta's primary effects, it shouldn't be the metric you use to decide your dose. Compared with other GLPs, Reta is harder on your system. Simply cranking the dose until it suppresses your appetite is not a good idea and I am alarmed at how many times I see this advice.

 

[darkreta120]

5byfive said:

I already mentioned this in a different thread. When appetite suppression is the main thing you're after, Tirz does that job better than Reta, so Reta isn't the right med for it. Because suppressing appetite isn't one of Reta's primary effects, it shouldn't be the metric you use to decide your dose. Compared with other GLPs, Reta is harder on your system. Simply cranking the dose until it suppresses your appetite is not a good idea and I am alarmed at how many times I see this advice.

My blood glucose has improved on Reta, which is a big plus, even though my weight hasn't dropped at all. I'm considering stacking tirz to bring in appetite suppression, but first I'd like to hear how that has worked out for others.

 

[woundcarping]

5byfive said:

I already mentioned this in a different thread. When appetite suppression is the main thing you're after, Tirz does that job better than Reta, so Reta isn't the right med for it. Because suppressing appetite isn't one of Reta's primary effects, it shouldn't be the metric you use to decide your dose. Compared with other GLPs, Reta is harder on your system. Simply cranking the dose until it suppresses your appetite is not a good idea and I am alarmed at how many times I see this advice.

Putting aside how hungry you feel, and going by the assumptions in play, a weekly amount of .5-2mg of Reta does not reach a dose that is practically therapeutic.

Reta does produce appetite suppression, but like you suggest, that is not the main advantage it holds over a drug such as Tirz.

Every week a small number of posts like these appear, and without fail the person is on a tiny to low dose and would rather stack than titrate Reta up to a level where benefits show.

 

[5byfive]

I'm not claiming it has no benefits, nor am I telling you to avoid it. My point is simply this: if appetite suppression is what you're after, Tirz does that job better. That said, if you plan to remain on Reta, then appetite suppression shouldn't be the thing that decides your dose.

Stacking at low doses seems like a reasonable approach to me. Take my own case: I was running about 4.5mg of Tirz and getting solid appetite suppression, yet even after an initial stretch of fatigue that cleared up within a couple of weeks, my energy still felt below where it normally sits. So I cut my Tirz back to 3mg and introduced 1mg of Reta. Judging and fine-tuning this will take a few weeks, but right now I'm noticing a clear boost in energy. That said, you might want to let things build in your system a while longer before you change anything.

 

[FRMN01]

darkreta120 said:

Looking for input on how Reta affects appetite. I'm in my 4th week of using it. During week 1 I took .5mg, then 1mg in week 2, and 2mg for weeks 3 and 4. Only in that opening week did I notice any hunger reduction; after that, nothing. I'm considering dividing my doses into half-week intervals. Some folks mention tirz is more effective for appetite control, so would introducing a low dose of tirz now be premature? Curious if others have experienced something like this.

Has your weight gone up? If it hasn't, remain at 2mg for 4 weeks, and only raise it afterward if the pounds aren't coming off. The goal here is finding the dose that gives you the best weight loss for your body, one where side effects are either manageable or absent and you're still dropping roughly .5lb per week on average. There's no need to hurry — follow the well-established protocol. This is a long game. Should you get up to 10-12mg and still feel you need more, that's when splitting or stacking is worth considering.

 

[darkreta120]

BNLFL said:

woundcarping said:

The thread title tells you what the dose is.

Raise it.

Take the energy I saved and dig into the forum and the useful search function.

Building on his point: give each dose a full 4 weeks before judging it. My suggestion would be to begin at 2mg. I stayed on every dose for a minimum of 4 weeks, and things went smoothly for us. That said, it's your call.

When does weight loss actually begin to show for you?

FRMN01 said:


Are you gaining weight? If not, stick to 2mg for 4 weeks, then increase if not loosing weight. Idea is to get to optimal weight lost dose for you, which will have tolerable or no side effects and you loosing at least .5lb weekly on average. Don't rush things, stick to the tried and true protocol. It's a long game. If you reach 10-12mg and need anything more then you should think about splitting or stacking.

Click to expand...

My weight hasn't really moved — I've gained about .4 pounds over the past 2 weeks, though for me that's within the margin of error.

 

[diplomat]

Calling all non-responders!!

My starting weight was 218; through 'diet&excercised' I got down to 200, and then hit a hard plateau.

After fifteen weeks on Reta, I titrated all the way to 12mg. I got every side effect imaginable, yet hunger never really went away.

During week one the slowed digestion was noticeable, but I was still ravenously hungry... reflux and indigestion hit me hard. I stacked Cagrilintide on top, and so far that hasn't moved the needle much.

Once heart rate and sleep problems piled up to the point of 'enough'... my total weight loss stood at - 3 lbs.

Now making the switch to Survodutide, alongside the Cag.

 

[Cannonball72]

darkreta120 said:

5byfive said:

I already mentioned this in a different thread. When appetite suppression is the main thing you're after, Tirz does that job better than Reta, so Reta isn't the right med for it. Because suppressing appetite isn't one of Reta's primary effects, it shouldn't be the metric you use to decide your dose. Compared with other GLPs, Reta is harder on your system. Simply cranking the dose until it suppresses your appetite is not a good idea and I am alarmed at how many times I see this advice.

My blood glucose has improved on Reta, which is a big plus, even though my weight hasn't dropped at all. I'm considering stacking tirz to bring in appetite suppression, but first I'd like to hear how that has worked out for others.

Give it more time to accumulate in your body.

Reta isn't the same as Tirz. The glucagon component is significant, so you really have to ensure you're consuming sufficient protein and carbohydrates.

Maybe you aren't experiencing reduced hunger between meals, but what about during meals? Do you find yourself eating less without trying? That matters more than having an aversion to food.

A key advantage of Reta is that it doesn't cause food aversion. Yet simultaneously, it supports improved nutrient partitioning, strong satiety, and a higher resting metabolic rate.

 

[BNLFL]

darkreta120 said:


For weight loss when do you start seeing it work?

Click to expand...

Week 1 brought a 5lbs drop. A good portion of that was probably water, since we also cut carbs at the same time.

 

[darkreta120]

Cannonball72 said:

darkreta120 said:

5byfive said:

I already mentioned this in a different thread. When appetite suppression is the main thing you're after, Tirz does that job better than Reta, so Reta isn't the right med for it. Because suppressing appetite isn't one of Reta's primary effects, it shouldn't be the metric you use to decide your dose. Compared with other GLPs, Reta is harder on your system. Simply cranking the dose until it suppresses your appetite is not a good idea and I am alarmed at how many times I see this advice.

My blood glucose has improved on Reta, which is a big plus, even though my weight hasn't dropped at all. I'm considering stacking tirz to bring in appetite suppression, but first I'd like to hear how that has worked out for others.

Give it more time to accumulate in your body.

Reta isn't the same as Tirz. The glucagon component is significant, so you really have to ensure you're consuming sufficient protein and carbohydrates.

Maybe you aren't experiencing reduced hunger between meals, but what about during meals? Do you find yourself eating less without trying? That matters more than having an aversion to food.

A key advantage of Reta is that it doesn't cause food aversion. Yet simultaneously, it supports improved nutrient partitioning, strong satiety, and a higher resting metabolic rate.

I’ve been meeting my protein and carb targets. These days I don’t really track them, but as far as meals go, I’m not feeling any fuller than I usually would.

 

[catwitch]

5byfive said:

I'm not claiming it has no benefits, nor am I telling you to avoid it. My point is simply this: if appetite suppression is what you're after, Tirz does that job better. That said, if you plan to remain on Reta, then appetite suppression shouldn't be the thing that decides your dose.

Stacking at low doses seems like a reasonable approach to me. Take my own case: I was running about 4.5mg of Tirz and getting solid appetite suppression, yet even after an initial stretch of fatigue that cleared up within a couple of weeks, my energy still felt below where it normally sits. So I cut my Tirz back to 3mg and introduced 1mg of Reta. Judging and fine-tuning this will take a few weeks, but right now I'm noticing a clear boost in energy. That said, you might want to let things build in your system a while longer before you change anything.

I followed that same schedule to the letter, the doses and the timing both, and my condition has improved a great deal.

 

[Troposphere]

For the initial 4 weeks I took 1mg each week. During that period, I noticed my stomach felt empty and I knew I needed calories. It was a kind of hunger where food itself held no appeal. Eating would make me full fast. These days, at 2.5mg per week, that sensation has weakened. That said, while eating, there are moments when my meal disgusts me and I have zero desire to continue, and that includes pizza!

I'm just sharing this as one more data point.

 

[Pin&Play]

If you aren't feeling any sides whatsoever, then a gradual increase in dose probably won't carry too much risk, but keep an eye on your blood sugar and make sure your carbs, water, and electrolytes stay up.

The wisest and least risky approach would be to hold at 2mg for another couple of weeks, then move to 4mg if that becomes necessary.

Adding Tirz or pinning every 3 days this early on — bringing in extra variables — isn't something I'd suggest.

 

[alphaamigo]

The issue stems from not having faith in the protocol. For obese subjects, 2mg over 4 weeks is the introductory dose—intended not only to minimize side-effects but also to establish metabolic stability. Jumping in at a high dose won't give someone extra advantage from reta. It will lead to stronger appetite suppression, which might yield roughly 2-3% additional weight loss in those initial weeks from glycogen depletion and water loss, yet across 12 weeks, it won't truly result in greater overall weight loss, and the pounds shed would represent less total fat than if one had titrated gradually.

Conversely, staying at too low a dose for too long also won't bring about the metabolic changes that someone is seeking from reta.

 

[Ironz]

I've been on 1mg for 2 weeks at this point, and my appetite has pretty much vanished! I honestly wasn't expecting any kind of response, but these days I have to remind myself to eat since I never really feel hungry. Everyone is different

 

[Birdie]

woundcarping said:

5byfive said:

I already mentioned this in a different thread. When appetite suppression is the main thing you're after, Tirz does that job better than Reta, so Reta isn't the right med for it. Because suppressing appetite isn't one of Reta's primary effects, it shouldn't be the metric you use to decide your dose. Compared with other GLPs, Reta is harder on your system. Simply cranking the dose until it suppresses your appetite is not a good idea and I am alarmed at how many times I see this advice.

Putting aside how hungry you feel, and going by the assumptions in play, a weekly amount of .5-2mg of Reta does not reach a dose that is practically therapeutic.

Reta does produce appetite suppression, but like you suggest, that is not the main advantage it holds over a drug such as Tirz.

Every week a small number of posts like these appear, and without fail the person is on a tiny to low dose and would rather stack than titrate Reta up to a level where benefits show.

This is exactly what happened to me. My first GLP-1 was Sema, and later I layered Reta on top, worried that based on what other people reported, it wouldn't be enough to quiet my food noise. After more than a year of gradual dose increases, I finally felt confident enough to stop the Sema, and for the past 2 months I've been on Reta alone. These days I'm stepping the Reta down from 12 mgs weekly, keeping an eye on my food noise in relation to the blood level that Shotsy estimates. I know my experience might not match everyone else's, but the suppression caught me off guard in a good way, and I hope other people get the same result.

 

[darkreta120]

diplomat said:

Calling all non-responders!!

My starting weight was 218; through 'diet&excercised' I got down to 200, and then hit a hard plateau.

After fifteen weeks on Reta, I titrated all the way to 12mg. I got every side effect imaginable, yet hunger never really went away.

During week one the slowed digestion was noticeable, but I was still ravenously hungry... reflux and indigestion hit me hard. I stacked Cagrilintide on top, and so far that hasn't moved the needle much.

Once heart rate and sleep problems piled up to the point of 'enough'... my total weight loss stood at - 3 lbs.

Now making the switch to Survodutide, alongside the Cag.

My body is reacting, but appetite suppression isn't part of it. Because I'm still on a low dose, I'll wait longer, and if that doesn't work I'll switch to tirz.

alphaamigo said:

The issue stems from not having faith in the protocol. For obese subjects, 2mg over 4 weeks is the introductory dose—intended not only to minimize side-effects but also to establish metabolic stability. Jumping in at a high dose won't give someone extra advantage from reta. It will lead to stronger appetite suppression, which might yield roughly 2-3% additional weight loss in those initial weeks from glycogen depletion and water loss, yet across 12 weeks, it won't truly result in greater overall weight loss, and the pounds shed would represent less total fat than if one had titrated gradually.

Conversely, staying at too low a dose for too long also won't bring about the metabolic changes that someone is seeking from reta.

yeah, I get that. I'm just curious about when the appetite suppression will kick in. From what I saw, by 4 weeks most patients had at least some appetite suppression.