Reta vs Tirz

[JCO79]

Big thanks to everyone here for the knowledge and the sense of agency it's given me. Reta versus tirz has come up plenty of times, and I've gone through those threads and picked up a great deal. The search tool has been a huge help. Yesterday I finally pinned 1mg of Reta for the first time, and now I'm basically watching to find out whether that small dose does anything I can notice. Even so, I keep going back and forth on which one to stay on long term.

For context, I've already reached my goal weight by eating very restrictively, and I've maintained that for several years since a large weight loss. It isn't exactly a "normal" way to live, and I'd like to be able to have a few carbs without triggering the addictive food behaviors I'm susceptible to. I enjoy lifting weights, and I deal with some anxiety. My preference is to dial in 1 agent's dose before I'd think about combining therapies. I realize the decision is mine to make, but could I get a logic check on this?

Reta pros:

-higher food intake

-more energy for exercise

Tirz pros:

-more food noise suppression

-less sleep disruption

-finished with phase 3 trials and excellent safety record

-more robust/easier storage of reconstituted peptide

-?more benefit for anxiety

Since I run anxious, I already feel a pull to stockpile, and I want to be sure I choose the agent I'm most likely to actually use. Tirz is where I'm leaning, but the worry is low energy and workouts that are bad or nonexistent in that setting. Thanks again to anyone who can share insights from their own experience.

 

[woundcarping]

If your goal is only some help with appetite and weight loss isn’t necessary, then Tirz seems to me like the obvious choice.

 

[JCO79]

That is logical. Perhaps I'm exaggerating how much tirz drains my energy? I do exercise, though summoning the drive is a struggle for me. I'm built more like a buffalo than a squirrel.

 

[Grogu]

JCO79 said:

Big thanks to everyone here for the knowledge and the sense of agency it's given me. Reta versus tirz has come up plenty of times, and I've gone through those threads and picked up a great deal. The search tool has been a huge help. Yesterday I finally pinned 1mg of Reta for the first time, and now I'm basically watching to find out whether that small dose does anything I can notice. Even so, I keep going back and forth on which one to stay on long term.

For context, I've already reached my goal weight by eating very restrictively, and I've maintained that for several years since a large weight loss. It isn't exactly a "normal" way to live, and I'd like to be able to have a few carbs without triggering the addictive food behaviors I'm susceptible to. I enjoy lifting weights, and I deal with some anxiety. My preference is to dial in 1 agent's dose before I'd think about combining therapies. I realize the decision is mine to make, but could I get a logic check on this?

Reta pros:

-higher food intake

-more energy for exercise

Tirz pros:

-more food noise suppression

-less sleep disruption

-finished with phase 3 trials and excellent safety record

-more robust/easier storage of reconstituted peptide

-?more benefit for anxiety

Since I run anxious, I already feel a pull to stockpile, and I want to be sure I choose the agent I'm most likely to actually use. Tirz is where I'm leaning, but the worry is low energy and workouts that are bad or nonexistent in that setting. Thanks again to anyone who can share insights from their own experience.

When you're comparing the two, the one about safety data really ought to note that tirzepatide carries FDA approval and has a strong safety profile. Still, my view is that reta getting FDA approval is basically a done deal — but it's not official until it's official.

I don't have much to offer on reta against tirz, since I only took my first reta injection on Friday night, and I went bigger than you did at 4mg. This morning I'm noticing a slight effect, and it's clearly not the same as sema or cagri. Of those 3, sema actually hit me the hardest, which makes no sense at all. As for cagri, I'd call it the "cleanest" of the bunch. Nothing odd, no feelz to speak of, and the lone side effect was a complete and lovely lack of interest in eating. I had to make myself eat.

 

[woundcarping]

JCO79 said:

That is logical. Perhaps I'm exaggerating how much tirz drains my energy? I do exercise, though summoning the drive is a struggle for me. I'm built more like a buffalo than a squirrel.

If nothing has ever really been attempted by you, and all you require is help managing how much you eat, your appetite, and food noise, then Tirz is the one I would begin with.

When you go in expecting issues, issues become more probable.

On Tirz, energy was never an issue for me, yet about 3 weeks in I switched to Reta because it suited my goals better, and those goals mean reducing my body fat percentage by roughly 1/2.

 

[skunkypotato]

Speaking as a tirz-only user, fatigue hasn't been a problem in my case — I'm at 10mg and roughly 30 pounds away from my target weight. If anything, I feel more driven to get to the gym. A big part of my struggle was that before starting any glp's, I was putting in gym work but couldn't see the gains because fat was hiding them. Now that the fat is coming off, that effort is finally paying off. Plus, my health markers are all improving. I keep trying to hold myself back from switching to reta, since my current approach is clearly delivering results. The grass isn't always greener elsewhere — or sometimes it's just equally green.

 

[DragonOfTheSea]

When I first began Tirz, there were definitely a handful of weeks where I experienced quite strong sleepiness (close to narcolepsy ) — and by that I mean it only hit during the 24-36hrs following each dose, and only for a few hours at a time. That does fade, though, and you might not get it at all.

Over the long haul it shouldn’t be a problem, and like others have said — which I agree with — Tirz seems like the right choice, but ultimately your own body will decide.. since everyone responds differently, and it could turn out that Sema or Reta is what gives you the results you’re after.

 

[BNLFL]

17 weeks in on Reta and it's still doing the job well. I have no plans to switch. Let's just say I've built up a supply.

 

[Grogu]

BNLFL said:

17 weeks in on Reta and it's still doing the job well. I have no plans to switch. Let's just say I've built up a supply.

I've got a 10-year supply of tirzepatide put away, but now that I'm using reta, I see I've only got about 2 years' worth of it — should've picked up some of that R140 too

 

[FartfulCodger]

Tirz and Reta both strike me as miracle drugs, though Tirz is the one I strongly prefer. In 5 months I dropped 60 pounds on it. When I gave Reta a try as a replacement, the results just weren't comparable. One piece of advice if Reta is your plan: starting with Tirz beforehand is a mistake. Tirz's appetite suppression sets the bar so high that you'll feel spoiled, and some of the weight may come back right after you move from Tirz over to Reta.

 

[woundcarping]

Grogu said:

BNLFL said:

17 weeks in on Reta and it's still doing the job well. I have no plans to switch. Let's just say I've built up a supply.

I've got a 10-year supply of tirzepatide put away, but now that I'm using reta, I see I've only got about 2 years' worth of it — should've picked up some of that R140 too

A genuine friend would've given you a heads-up about that result...

 

[woundcarping]

FartfulCodger said:

Tirz and Reta both strike me as miracle drugs, though Tirz is the one I strongly prefer. In 5 months I dropped 60 pounds on it. When I gave Reta a try as a replacement, the results just weren't comparable. One piece of advice if Reta is your plan: starting with Tirz beforehand is a mistake. Tirz's appetite suppression sets the bar so high that you'll feel spoiled, and some of the weight may come back right after you move from Tirz over to Reta.

My own situation was different — by week 2 of Tirz at 5mg each week, things weren't like that for me.

A total loss of appetite isn't what I'm after. Eating less and dropping weight is the goal. Tirz never stopped me from eating, and neither does Reta. Going without food is "bad" and it's tough to keep up over the long haul.

Tirz shows up as grey, Reta as pink.

 

[Grogu]

woundcarping said:

Grogu said:

BNLFL said:

17 weeks in on Reta and it's still doing the job well. I have no plans to switch. Let's just say I've built up a supply.

I've got a 10-year supply of tirzepatide put away, but now that I'm using reta, I see I've only got about 2 years' worth of it — should've picked up some of that R140 too

A genuine friend would've given you a heads-up about that result...

People kept telling me, again and again — I guess I'm just a bit slow on the uptake at times .

For anyone trying to figure out how many peptides to buy: there's no such thing as having too much cash, being too young, or keeping too many peptides in your freezer!

 

[woundcarping]

Grogu said:

woundcarping said:

Grogu said:

BNLFL said:

17 weeks in on Reta and it's still doing the job well. I have no plans to switch. Let's just say I've built up a supply.

I've got a 10-year supply of tirzepatide put away, but now that I'm using reta, I see I've only got about 2 years' worth of it — should've picked up some of that R140 too

A genuine friend would've given you a heads-up about that result...

People kept telling me, again and again — I guess I'm just a bit slow on the uptake at times .

For anyone trying to figure out how many peptides to buy: there's no such thing as having too much cash, being too young, or keeping too many peptides in your freezer!

Funds don't come cheap, but as we all know, chances are a dime a dozen!

 

[Pin&Play]

Reta gave me anxiety, and I don't normally deal with that.

Given that you brought it up, for me that's reason enough to say Tirz should be your starting point.

Also, I doubt any GLP will leave you exhausted as long as your intake is sufficient (more likely you'll just feel weighed down from digestion being slow)

 

[randompersonrandom]

For the majority of folks, I'd say tirz is the stronger option at this point; reta suits those with a mild collecting habit.

Tirz comes with longer-term safety and efficacy information, and we've got a solid grasp on titration, adverse effects, dosing — makers have had ample time to refine production, it's been available long enough that the price isn't sky-high, and all in all it's an excellent medication whose mechanism clicks for people who struggle to stop overeating too frequently.

With reta, our current knowledge falls short of what we'd truly need to confirm we're getting product that performs reliably, won't unpredictably break down or develop potency issues after X amount of time, or trigger the sort of severe outcomes we'd catch if it were widely used. It's extremely fresh, and complications and surprises are likely for several years.

It makes complete sense for anyone who's discovered tirz doesn't work for them, yet tirz should genuinely be the first thing most people try, and for many it's the one that fits perfectly.

 

[WLBLD]

You are already at your goal & said it gets hard at times. Tirz has more research behind it, so trying that 1st at a low dose may be the way. Plenty of people maintain on low doses & find it easier.

Getting 1 vial 1st would show you how it suits you. If nothing comes of it, stop & switch to Reta

My anxiety is really bad & I run both. I am far calmer these days

 

[woundcarping]

randompersonrandom said:

For the majority of folks, I'd say tirz is the stronger option at this point; reta suits those with a mild collecting habit.

Tirz comes with longer-term safety and efficacy information, and we've got a solid grasp on titration, adverse effects, dosing — makers have had ample time to refine production, it's been available long enough that the price isn't sky-high, and all in all it's an excellent medication whose mechanism clicks for people who struggle to stop overeating too frequently.

With reta, our current knowledge falls short of what we'd truly need to confirm we're getting product that performs reliably, won't unpredictably break down or develop potency issues after X amount of time, or trigger the sort of severe outcomes we'd catch if it were widely used. It's extremely fresh, and complications and surprises are likely for several years.

It makes complete sense for anyone who's discovered tirz doesn't work for them, yet tirz should genuinely be the first thing most people try, and for many it's the one that fits perfectly.

Another thing worth doing is comparing what you're aiming for against the trial results, then deciding where that leaves you. Say, for instance, your target is dropping 30+% of the weight you started at — then when you set 48-week Reta trial data beside 72-week Tirz data, Reta at least doubles the odds. *At 48 weeks Reta was still climbing, whereas Tirz had already flattened out by 72 weeks.

One concept I'm currently turning over, which came from @Grogu, is that what our bodies grow accustomed to is the peptide over a stretch of time rather than a set dose.... the different dose curves look alike and level off around the same points in time. That runs counter to "low and slow"... though as far as I know, no studies have looked at what happens when you raise the dose past the plateau — tracking weight changes and setting that against simply having been on a larger dose prior to plateauing.

 

[FartfulCodger]

woundcarping said:

FartfulCodger said:

Tirz and Reta both strike me as miracle drugs, though Tirz is the one I strongly prefer. In 5 months I dropped 60 pounds on it. When I gave Reta a try as a replacement, the results just weren't comparable. One piece of advice if Reta is your plan: starting with Tirz beforehand is a mistake. Tirz's appetite suppression sets the bar so high that you'll feel spoiled, and some of the weight may come back right after you move from Tirz over to Reta.

My own situation was different — by week 2 of Tirz at 5mg each week, things weren't like that for me.

A total loss of appetite isn't what I'm after. Eating less and dropping weight is the goal. Tirz never stopped me from eating, and neither does Reta. Going without food is "bad" and it's tough to keep up over the long haul.

Tirz shows up as grey, Reta as pink.





View attachment 11413

That's surprising. You went through 18mg of Reta within 18 days? Honestly, that dosage is outside anything I've tried, and I can see how it would cause rapid weight loss. For me, it would definitely have triggered significant allodynia.

 

[randompersonrandom]

woundcarping said:

randompersonrandom said:

For the majority of folks, I'd say tirz is the stronger option at this point; reta suits those with a mild collecting habit.

Tirz comes with longer-term safety and efficacy information, and we've got a solid grasp on titration, adverse effects, dosing — makers have had ample time to refine production, it's been available long enough that the price isn't sky-high, and all in all it's an excellent medication whose mechanism clicks for people who struggle to stop overeating too frequently.

With reta, our current knowledge falls short of what we'd truly need to confirm we're getting product that performs reliably, won't unpredictably break down or develop potency issues after X amount of time, or trigger the sort of severe outcomes we'd catch if it were widely used. It's extremely fresh, and complications and surprises are likely for several years.

It makes complete sense for anyone who's discovered tirz doesn't work for them, yet tirz should genuinely be the first thing most people try, and for many it's the one that fits perfectly.

Another thing worth doing is comparing what you're aiming for against the trial results, then deciding where that leaves you. Say, for instance, your target is dropping 30+% of the weight you started at — then when you set 48-week Reta trial data beside 72-week Tirz data, Reta at least doubles the odds. *At 48 weeks Reta was still climbing, whereas Tirz had already flattened out by 72 weeks.

One concept I'm currently turning over, which came from @Grogu, is that what our bodies grow accustomed to is the peptide over a stretch of time rather than a set dose.... the different dose curves look alike and level off around the same points in time. That runs counter to "low and slow"... though as far as I know, no studies have looked at what happens when you raise the dose past the plateau — tracking weight changes and setting that against simply having been on a larger dose prior to plateauing.

You make a strong argument.