Reta Triumph 1: New Results

[Smiter]

woundcarping said:

Smiter said:

woundcarping said:

Smiter said:

mybodyisasewer said:

This is a matter of national security.

The US DoD has to ensure gen Z gets access to this stuff so they can meet fitness standards for service.

The CCP is the one selling us the drugs that would strengthen the draft pool of their opponent.

Somehow the US seems fine letting its kids stay fat, while the Chinese are fine making them fit.

That's what puzzles the patriot.

They have more to kill/

Grogu said:

One more MASSIVE point from the phase 3 top line data: even when the dose increase happened at week 80, continuing to titrate upward still yielded extra weight reduction through week 104 (2 years). Absolutely YEAH! As expected, this effect was stronger among the 4mg group than the 9mg group. Still, for those on 9mg, going up at week 80 through week 104 gave close to another 3.4% of loss.

25MG of Tirzepatide, coming through, make some room . Right now, I would happily accept an extra 3.4% of weight loss….

still, the placebo details look very sketchy to me.

Are you aware that the placebo arm was switched to Reta at the 80-week mark, which led to weight loss in those participants?

In a separate trial, didn’t the 12mg cohort achieve a 24% reduction over 48 weeks?

That's the reason the study methods struck me as questionable. If they actually received the genuine medication, what justifies labeling them a placebo group? And on top of that, a few suggest they got the drug afterward and then experienced massive weight reduction...To me, all of that looked wrong.

The control group is the placebo group… until the test variable is introduced, every participant belongs to the control group… Those who began receiving Reta at 80 weeks had been part of the control group up to that point. Think of it as back-to-back trials, where the control groups for the placebo and the lower dose escalation trials run at the same time.

Yeah, I interpreted it the same way. The way I see it, that study design has a real problem: once the actual medication is administered to a group, calling them a placebo group doesn't make sense anymore. And beyond that, doesn't it undermine what a placebo group is supposed to do in the first place? My take is that if the goal is to compare long-slow-titration, quick-dose-escalation, and an actual placebo group for drug efficacy, there ought to be a third arm that never receives the drug at all. Does that make sense to you?

 

[V6R3W]

What stands out to me from Reta Triumph 1 is that a single person in the placebo arm shed 35% of their body weight without any active drug. That strongly suggests lifestyle adjustments were also in play.

 

[Bioexplorer]

Why would someone stick with the study once they realized they were getting the placebo? The money must have been enough to keep them compliant.

When I mentioned the Reta trials were recruiting, my brother started checking right away. Luckily he wasn't eligible because he'd used tirz before. He's exactly the type of subject a trial doesn't want. Having experienced GLP-1s already, he said that if nothing kicked in during week 1, he'd quit.

 

[Airborne Daddy]

Bioexplorer said:

Why would someone stick with the study once they realized they were getting the placebo? The money must have been enough to keep them compliant.

When I mentioned the Reta trials were recruiting, my brother started checking right away. Luckily he wasn't eligible because he'd used tirz before. He's exactly the type of subject a trial doesn't want. Having experienced GLP-1s already, he said that if nothing kicked in during week 1, he'd quit.

Also, how come the placebo group's numbers at week 104 weren't that far away from the 4mg reta group's...

 

[Grogu]

Airborne Daddy said:

Bioexplorer said:

Why would someone stick with the study once they realized they were getting the placebo? The money must have been enough to keep them compliant.

When I mentioned the Reta trials were recruiting, my brother started checking right away. Luckily he wasn't eligible because he'd used tirz before. He's exactly the type of subject a trial doesn't want. Having experienced GLP-1s already, he said that if nothing kicked in during week 1, he'd quit.

Also, how come the placebo group's numbers at week 104 weren't that far away from the 4mg reta group's...

That's pretty difficult to accept, given that the 4mg group had been taking reta for 80 weeks while the placebo group took nothing across those same 80 weeks, after which both arms were titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose. It doesn't bode well for remaining on low doses over extended periods.

 

[alphaamigo]

Bioexplorer said:

Why would someone stick with the study once they realized they were getting the placebo? The money must have been enough to keep them compliant.

When I mentioned the Reta trials were recruiting, my brother started checking right away. Luckily he wasn't eligible because he'd used tirz before. He's exactly the type of subject a trial doesn't want. Having experienced GLP-1s already, he said that if nothing kicked in during week 1, he'd quit.

In a medical trial, participants receive payment regardless of whether they're given the actual medication or a placebo. During a trial I took part in, the compensation was $1000 per week across 8 weeks. (This wasn't a weight loss study.)

 

[chewonmysac]

At higher doses, the side effect profile became noticeably stronger. If anything, what I saw only confirmed that staying on Tirzepatide was the right call for me—my own outcomes have surpassed those from the Reta trial, and I haven’t dealt with any of those side effects. Total weight loss: 35.4% over 52 weeks.

 

[BNLFL]

chmuse said:

View attachment 10011

Came across this over on reddit.

At 8mg, I haven't experienced any of them.

 

[mybodyisasewer]

chewonmysac said:

At higher doses, the side effect profile became noticeably stronger. If anything, what I saw only confirmed that staying on Tirzepatide was the right call for me—my own outcomes have surpassed those from the Reta trial, and I haven’t dealt with any of those side effects. Total weight loss: 35.4% over 52 weeks.

At times I ask myself whether my view would look any different had I gone with tirz rather than reta back when I was starting out.

Still, reta was the one I went with. That makes it the superior option. And whatever you think is simply incorrect.

 

[SVT810E]

Smiter said:

woundcarping said:

Smiter said:

mybodyisasewer said:

This is a matter of national security.

The US DoD has to ensure gen Z gets access to this stuff so they can meet fitness standards for service.

The CCP is the one selling us the drugs that would strengthen the draft pool of their opponent.

Somehow the US seems fine letting its kids stay fat, while the Chinese are fine making them fit.

That's what puzzles the patriot.

They have more to kill/

Grogu said:

One more MASSIVE point from the phase 3 top line data: even when the dose increase happened at week 80, continuing to titrate upward still yielded extra weight reduction through week 104 (2 years). Absolutely YEAH! As expected, this effect was stronger among the 4mg group than the 9mg group. Still, for those on 9mg, going up at week 80 through week 104 gave close to another 3.4% of loss.

25MG of Tirzepatide, coming through, make some room . Right now, I would happily accept an extra 3.4% of weight loss….

still, the placebo details look very sketchy to me.

Are you aware that the placebo arm was switched to Reta at the 80-week mark, which led to weight loss in those participants?

In a separate trial, didn’t the 12mg cohort achieve a 24% reduction over 48 weeks?

That's the reason the study methods struck me as questionable. If they actually received the genuine medication, what justifies labeling them a placebo group? And on top of that, a few suggest they got the drug afterward and then experienced massive weight reduction...To me, all of that looked wrong.

This was an extension phase, separate from the main trial. During the main trial, the placebo arm continued receiving sterile water injections. The switch happened only once that main portion had concluded.

 

[lessthanhalf]

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

 

[BNLFL]

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

At 8mg of Reta, neither my wife nor I have experienced anything resembling nausea.

 

[TooGood76]

Big ups to that 14% in the placebo arm who managed to think their way into diarrhea, and extra props to the 4% who chatted themselves straight into a UTI

 

[woundcarping]

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

It's good to finally see some real data backing up the notion that "low and slow" isn't necessarily as harmful as I'd assumed — though for anyone aiming to shed a significant amount of fat, it still strikes me as odd.

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

Whether that's a good thing or not, Reta has given me almost no nausea and not a single instance of vomiting past the doses I trialed... It makes me question whether the study only needed a single episode of throwing up or one of the tracked symptoms across the entire 2 years to log someone as having that side effect. The placebo arm ought to balance that out, but .

 

[TooGood76]

woundcarping said:

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

It's good to finally see some real data backing up the notion that "low and slow" isn't necessarily as harmful as I'd assumed — though for anyone aiming to shed a significant amount of fat, it still strikes me as odd.

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

Whether that's a good thing or not, Reta has given me almost no nausea and not a single instance of vomiting past the doses I trialed... It makes me question whether the study only needed a single episode of throwing up or one of the tracked symptoms across the entire 2 years to log someone as having that side effect. The placebo arm ought to balance that out, but .

When a physician checks in every week about nausea or bowel trouble, and there are surveys to complete, a psychological component kicks in—you end up dwelling on those symptoms without meaning to. That explains why nausea showed up in such a large share of the placebo group.

 

[Ascojoerg]

TooGood76 said:

woundcarping said:

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

It's good to finally see some real data backing up the notion that "low and slow" isn't necessarily as harmful as I'd assumed — though for anyone aiming to shed a significant amount of fat, it still strikes me as odd.

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

Whether that's a good thing or not, Reta has given me almost no nausea and not a single instance of vomiting past the doses I trialed... It makes me question whether the study only needed a single episode of throwing up or one of the tracked symptoms across the entire 2 years to log someone as having that side effect. The placebo arm ought to balance that out, but .

When a physician checks in every week about nausea or bowel trouble, and there are surveys to complete, a psychological component kicks in—you end up dwelling on those symptoms without meaning to. That explains why nausea showed up in such a large share of the placebo group.

I'm convinced that contributes to what placebo groups show. My own take, though, is that something far more straightforward explains it. During the study they did experience genuine nausea, yet it had nothing to do with the drug. That framing could also make the nausea figures in the non-placebo arm easier to read: maybe those RS would have felt sick from meals or any number of other causes whether or not they were enrolled in the trial.

 

[TooGood76]

Ascojoerg said:

TooGood76 said:

woundcarping said:

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

It's good to finally see some real data backing up the notion that "low and slow" isn't necessarily as harmful as I'd assumed — though for anyone aiming to shed a significant amount of fat, it still strikes me as odd.

lessthanhalf said:

What stands out is that people kept losing weight past the 80-week mark when their dose went up. That tells me the point where weight loss stalls has more to do with how much you're taking than how long you've been on it.

Also, a 25% vomiting rate at 9 or 12mg isn't great.

Whether that's a good thing or not, Reta has given me almost no nausea and not a single instance of vomiting past the doses I trialed... It makes me question whether the study only needed a single episode of throwing up or one of the tracked symptoms across the entire 2 years to log someone as having that side effect. The placebo arm ought to balance that out, but .

When a physician checks in every week about nausea or bowel trouble, and there are surveys to complete, a psychological component kicks in—you end up dwelling on those symptoms without meaning to. That explains why nausea showed up in such a large share of the placebo group.

I'm convinced that contributes to what placebo groups show. My own take, though, is that something far more straightforward explains it. During the study they did experience genuine nausea, yet it had nothing to do with the drug. That framing could also make the nausea figures in the non-placebo arm easier to read: maybe those RS would have felt sick from meals or any number of other causes whether or not they were enrolled in the trial.

Yeah, exactly — if you go past 2 years, experiencing nausea on just a handful of occasions is completely unremarkable.

 

[Ryanking11]

What it accomplishes is genuinely remarkable.

 

[CallieKat]

Now it makes sense why reta 4 got me so much leaner than tirz 5 did…

 

[Bushum]

Grogu said:

Airborne Daddy said:

Bioexplorer said:

Why would someone stick with the study once they realized they were getting the placebo? The money must have been enough to keep them compliant.

When I mentioned the Reta trials were recruiting, my brother started checking right away. Luckily he wasn't eligible because he'd used tirz before. He's exactly the type of subject a trial doesn't want. Having experienced GLP-1s already, he said that if nothing kicked in during week 1, he'd quit.

Also, how come the placebo group's numbers at week 104 weren't that far away from the 4mg reta group's...

That's pretty difficult to accept, given that the 4mg group had been taking reta for 80 weeks while the placebo group took nothing across those same 80 weeks, after which both arms were titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose. It doesn't bode well for remaining on low doses over extended periods.

Would you mind breaking down what's in bold? My own approach is to remain at a very low dose for years, yet I don't follow what you're suggesting. Thanks!