Reta vs TRZ - barely worth the switch?

[Justatechdude]

I’ve got roughly 20 lbs left before I hit my goal weight. TRZ has been working for me at a low dose, but I was thinking about moving over to RETA, mainly because I want to hold onto muscle and find it easier to get enough protein in to do that.

Then again, looking at the long haul, TRZ keeps better and only runs half the cost. For maintenance down the road, TRZ looks like the smarter pick. I’ll likely grab a few kits and build a stash.

Any input?

 

[ambot88]

If tirz is doing the job and you're nowhere near the top dose, there's no reason I can see to change. Don't fix what isn't broken.

 

[Jerrey]

Justatechdude said:

I’ve got roughly 20 lbs left before I hit my goal weight. TRZ has been working for me at a low dose, but I was thinking about moving over to RETA, mainly because I want to hold onto muscle and find it easier to get enough protein in to do that.

Then again, looking at the long haul, TRZ keeps better and only runs half the cost. For maintenance down the road, TRZ looks like the smarter pick. I’ll likely grab a few kits and build a stash.

Any input?

I'm in the same boat — I've got quite a big stash of Tirzepatide, and that's exactly why. Sure, Reta might make holding onto muscle a bit simpler, but when I eventually move to a maintenance dose, my plan is to lower it and then build up from that point.

 

[JCO79]

I have the same question. My plan is to begin with tirz, aiming for weight maintenance and a better relationship with food. That said, I do lift weights, so I'm concerned about undereating and losing muscle. Given the very advantages you pointed out, I figure I owe Tirz a proper attempt before anything else.

 

[5byfive]

The idea that GLPs are behind muscle loss doesn't hold up at all. Nothing points to that being true. What actually drives muscle loss is a calorie deficit. You can reduce that effect—or sometimes cancel it out entirely—through protein intake and resistance training. People aren't losing muscle because of the GLPs; they're losing it because they're dropping weight without doing what's needed to hold onto muscle. And when you compare Reta and Tirz on muscle loss, the gap is likely explained by how quickly the weight comes off, not by anything either med does to protect muscle.

 

[birdwhacker]

JCO79 said:

I have the same question. My plan is to begin with tirz, aiming for weight maintenance and a better relationship with food. That said, I do lift weights, so I'm concerned about undereating and losing muscle. Given the very advantages you pointed out, I figure I owe Tirz a proper attempt before anything else.

Influencers are pushing pure rubbish here.

To keep your muscle, take in 1g of protein for every pound of the weight you're aiming for, and keep weekly losses at 1 pound or less.

I'm not doing any strength training and I'm running a 1000 calorie deficit. Don't follow my example, and you'll probably be okay.

 

[woundcarping]

5byfive said:

The idea that GLPs are behind muscle loss doesn't hold up at all. Nothing points to that being true. What actually drives muscle loss is a calorie deficit. You can reduce that effect—or sometimes cancel it out entirely—through protein intake and resistance training. People aren't losing muscle because of the GLPs; they're losing it because they're dropping weight without doing what's needed to hold onto muscle. And when you compare Reta and Tirz on muscle loss, the gap is likely explained by how quickly the weight comes off, not by anything either med does to protect muscle.

When GLP makes it nearly effortless to hold a huge calorie deficit, the resulting weight loss can be far more catabolic than what you'd get from plain dieting. The GLP itself isn't what directly triggers the catabolism — rather, it sets up the circumstances where someone uninformed (whether by choice or not) can shed muscle without much resistance. It's somewhat a chicken/egg situation, except no rooster means no eggs become chickens.

5byfive said:

The idea that GLPs are behind muscle loss doesn't hold up at all. Nothing points to that being true. What actually drives muscle loss is a calorie deficit. You can reduce that effect—or sometimes cancel it out entirely—through protein intake and resistance training. People aren't losing muscle because of the GLPs; they're losing it because they're dropping weight without doing what's needed to hold onto muscle. And when you compare Reta and Tirz on muscle loss, the gap is likely explained by how quickly the weight comes off, not by anything either med does to protect muscle.

Data on Reta is still isn't much, though the word going around is that it spares muscle better; at the same time it drives faster weight loss, which is usually seen as more catabolic. Worth noting: lean mass ≠ muscle mass.

Justatechdude said:

I’ve got roughly 20 lbs left before I hit my goal weight. TRZ has been working for me at a low dose, but I was thinking about moving over to RETA, mainly because I want to hold onto muscle and find it easier to get enough protein in to do that.

Then again, looking at the long haul, TRZ keeps better and only runs half the cost. For maintenance down the road, TRZ looks like the smarter pick. I’ll likely grab a few kits and build a stash.

Any input?

At 20lb out, that's presumably not a huge distance. If that's where you are, I don't really see why you'd bother switching. My own path was Tirz to Reta at the 4-week mark, and I've now been on Reta for nearly 18 weeks.

Price-wise, Reta vs Tirz makes almost no difference, and that gap shrinks further at lower doses.

Until I understand better what Reta's GCGR side means over the long haul, I lean toward Tirz likely being the gentler option long term... I'm not committed either direction for maintenance, I've got plenty of both and it'll be 4-6 months before maintenance is even on the table.

 

[Justatechdude]

JCO79 said:

I have the same question. My plan is to begin with tirz, aiming for weight maintenance and a better relationship with food. That said, I do lift weights, so I'm concerned about undereating and losing muscle. Given the very advantages you pointed out, I figure I owe Tirz a proper attempt before anything else.

Yeah, I genuinely had to add more meals to my day since the weight was coming off too quickly and getting enough calories across 3 meals was too difficult. These days I aim for 4 meals, each around -600 calories.

Most likely I'll stay on TRZ, and once I reach my goal weight, maybe I'll enjoy looking into CJC, IPA and TESA to go along with strength training.

 

[woundcarping]

Justatechdude said:

JCO79 said:

I have the same question. My plan is to begin with tirz, aiming for weight maintenance and a better relationship with food. That said, I do lift weights, so I'm concerned about undereating and losing muscle. Given the very advantages you pointed out, I figure I owe Tirz a proper attempt before anything else.

Yeah, I genuinely had to add more meals to my day since the weight was coming off too quickly and getting enough calories across 3 meals was too difficult. These days I aim for 4 meals, each around -600 calories.

Most likely I'll stay on TRZ, and once I reach my goal weight, maybe I'll enjoy looking into CJC, IPA and TESA to go along with strength training.

At what point did the pace become excessive for you?

 

[Justatechdude]

10 lbs gone in 3 weeks. I started at 25%BF. Still need to shift 30lbs and my strength fell off a cliff

 

[Cumulus]

birdwhacker said:

JCO79 said:

I have the same question. My plan is to begin with tirz, aiming for weight maintenance and a better relationship with food. That said, I do lift weights, so I'm concerned about undereating and losing muscle. Given the very advantages you pointed out, I figure I owe Tirz a proper attempt before anything else.

Influencers are pushing pure rubbish here.

To keep your muscle, take in 1g of protein for every pound of the weight you're aiming for, and keep weekly losses at 1 pound or less.

I'm not doing any strength training and I'm running a 1000 calorie deficit. Don't follow my example, and you'll probably be okay.

Research keeps pointing to doses even lower than that being enough to hold onto muscle. That goes double for people who have been training for a while.

Which is a relief, since I am about to borrow money just to afford a decent steak.