Semaglutide vs tirzepatide: still weighing the options

[nurseratchit]

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

Despite what many people say, there isn't a single optimal option—just the one that suits you, and you'll only find that out by trying. Whichever route you take, you can usually reduce most side effects by beginning at a low dose and increasing it gradually. The typical advice is to remain at every dose level for 4 weeks.

 

[leo_123]

Just picked up how to multi-quote… good timing

BNLFL said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

Right now, the one that appears to be used most often is tirzepatide.

leo_123 said:

finesse said:

If I had to pick, I'd say Triz

80lbs gone after 11 months. That's with watching what I eat, lifting weights and getting my steps in.

Currently giving reta a go, though the appetite suppression doesn't hit as hard — or maybe your body torches more calories, so you end up hungrier... Hard to say

Appreciate you describing how it went for you — from what I can tell, tirzepatide remains the option that the most people keep reporting good results with.

leo_123 said:

BrightCandle said:

Tirz, based on what the trial data shows, it looks fairly obvious that it works 2 times as well as Sema, and it comes with fewer side effects.

So that's one more mark in tirz's favor

leo_123 said:

5byfive said:

Price might be the only thing that makes Sema a better pick than Tirz, as far as I can tell. Tirz simply comes out ahead. The results are stronger, and even more significant is that it brings fewer side effects. On top of that, Tirz has become fairly affordable, so price doesn't hold up as much of a reason anymore. Tirz is the way to go,

That makes sense!

leo_123 said:

CJsMom said:

I began on Sema and titrated up to the maximum dose as recommended, after which I made the switch to Tirz. When I was on the 2.4 Sema, the compounding company advised beginning Tirz at 9mg. The weight began coming off once more, and I noticed Tirz came with fewer side effects. While on Sema, I frequently experienced mild nausea. With Tirz there was no nausea, though constipation was a significant issue at the start. That resolved after a few weeks once I started eating prunes daily. I'm still using Tirz and have lately moved to a 5 day instead of 7 day schedule in an attempt to break through a stall. Whether that helps isn't clear yet. For me, Tirz turned out to be the better option. That said, each person's body responds in its own way. My own view is that Tirz delivers stronger results while causing fewer side effects.

I appreciate you laying out the differences so thoroughly!

leo_123 said:

mtomm said:

A lot of folks criticize Sema, yet for me it did the job, and in my view every GLP1 deserves a place as an option. After being on a maintenance dose of Sema, I made the switch to Tirz a few months back. These days I use Tirz to maintain. Sema gave me noticeably greater appetite suppression, and that's something I really miss.

When it comes to side effects, sure, Sema might come with more, but my take is that with whichever route you pick, it's simply about handling them.

Best of luck, and make the most of this journey. For me, it's been great.

Appreciate the input—Tirz is likely where I'll start.

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

Tirzepatide is the only one I've used, and I'm really happy with it! After 5 months, I'm down 30lbs and my activity levels haven't changed at all. My eating habits—both how much and how well I eat—have gotten better simply because my tastes, reactions, and cravings shifted, and I didn't have to work hard at it. The food noise and obsession? Completely gone!

On top of that, studies combining tirz with Eloralintide look really promising, so if you ever decide to add something later on, it seems like it would make a nice little stack.

That's impressive movement, particularly since your activity hasn't changed!

leo_123 said:

Fostradamus said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

Tirz, no contest. Having tried both, tirz gave me much better results. Sema only left me feeling sick without any weight loss. YMMV

Appreciate it — I’m also leaning toward Tirz as my starting point.

leo_123 said:

Skidude said:

Tirz gets my vote as well.

Here's why:

1. superior overall outcomes in studies
   
2. supply over the long haul
   
3. studies looking at it alongside other treatments
   
4. #1 factor: It did the job for me!

Tirz comes out on top!

leo_123 said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

Appreciate the thorough rundown—that clears a lot up! I'm leaning toward kicking things off with tirz and then watching how my system reacts.

leo_123 said:

Mood said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

My wife went from 215 down to 115 on tirz — close to 100lbs lost. For maintenance she's now on reta and focusing on building muscle. I'm on reta too (not much to lose; mostly a recomp). One thing to note: reta bumped my rhr up by 10 bpm.

My daughter was on sema and once she reached 1mg, she felt awful every week following her shot. She did lose weight, but a lot of it came from vomiting 3 days a week. At 17, sema was the only choice we had. We switched her to tirz and she's improved a lot and is still losing.

So, to sum up:

1. Tirz

2. Reta

99. Sema

Really useful way of looking at it—appreciate you laying that out! At this point I’m pretty much leaning toward tirz as my starting point.

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

Tirzepatide is the only one I've used, and I'm really happy with it! After 5 months, I'm down 30lbs and my activity levels haven't changed at all. My eating habits—both how much and how well I eat—have gotten better simply because my tastes, reactions, and cravings shifted, and I didn't have to work hard at it. The food noise and obsession? Completely gone!

On top of that, studies combining tirz with Eloralintide look really promising, so if you ever decide to add something later on, it seems like it would make a nice little stack.

That's impressive movement, particularly since your activity hasn't changed!

Oh, you're welcome! I have a feeling tirz will work out well for you.

One more thing, given that you like cats: there's a cat thread over in the Off Topic forum — drop by if you'd like to share or browse pics of kitties (the feline kind )

Tirz is the one I'm also leaning toward, and I'll take a look at that cat thread

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

Right now, the one that appears to be used most often is tirzepatide.

The reason it shows up so often is that it's available both through "big pharma" and via the gray market. Its side effects and so on are already known.

By the way, you have the option of hitting +quote on whichever posts you'd like to reply to, then combining all of those quotes so you can respond to them together in a single post, rather than replying to them one by one.

Appreciate the suggestion!

Multi-quote is something you should pick up. lol

Flash-BCR said:

BNLFL said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

Right now, the one that appears to be used most often is tirzepatide.

leo_123 said:

finesse said:

If I had to pick, I'd say Triz

80lbs gone after 11 months. That's with watching what I eat, lifting weights and getting my steps in.

Currently giving reta a go, though the appetite suppression doesn't hit as hard — or maybe your body torches more calories, so you end up hungrier... Hard to say

Appreciate you describing how it went for you — from what I can tell, tirzepatide remains the option that the most people keep reporting good results with.

leo_123 said:

BrightCandle said:

Tirz, based on what the trial data shows, it looks fairly obvious that it works 2 times as well as Sema, and it comes with fewer side effects.

So that's one more mark in tirz's favor

leo_123 said:

5byfive said:

Price might be the only thing that makes Sema a better pick than Tirz, as far as I can tell. Tirz simply comes out ahead. The results are stronger, and even more significant is that it brings fewer side effects. On top of that, Tirz has become fairly affordable, so price doesn't hold up as much of a reason anymore. Tirz is the way to go,

That makes sense!

leo_123 said:

CJsMom said:

I began on Sema and titrated up to the maximum dose as recommended, after which I made the switch to Tirz. When I was on the 2.4 Sema, the compounding company advised beginning Tirz at 9mg. The weight began coming off once more, and I noticed Tirz came with fewer side effects. While on Sema, I frequently experienced mild nausea. With Tirz there was no nausea, though constipation was a significant issue at the start. That resolved after a few weeks once I started eating prunes daily. I'm still using Tirz and have lately moved to a 5 day instead of 7 day schedule in an attempt to break through a stall. Whether that helps isn't clear yet. For me, Tirz turned out to be the better option. That said, each person's body responds in its own way. My own view is that Tirz delivers stronger results while causing fewer side effects.

I appreciate you laying out the differences so thoroughly!

leo_123 said:

mtomm said:

A lot of folks criticize Sema, yet for me it did the job, and in my view every GLP1 deserves a place as an option. After being on a maintenance dose of Sema, I made the switch to Tirz a few months back. These days I use Tirz to maintain. Sema gave me noticeably greater appetite suppression, and that's something I really miss.

When it comes to side effects, sure, Sema might come with more, but my take is that with whichever route you pick, it's simply about handling them.

Best of luck, and make the most of this journey. For me, it's been great.

Appreciate the input—Tirz is likely where I'll start.

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

Tirzepatide is the only one I've used, and I'm really happy with it! After 5 months, I'm down 30lbs and my activity levels haven't changed at all. My eating habits—both how much and how well I eat—have gotten better simply because my tastes, reactions, and cravings shifted, and I didn't have to work hard at it. The food noise and obsession? Completely gone!

On top of that, studies combining tirz with Eloralintide look really promising, so if you ever decide to add something later on, it seems like it would make a nice little stack.

That's impressive movement, particularly since your activity hasn't changed!

leo_123 said:

Fostradamus said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

Tirz, no contest. Having tried both, tirz gave me much better results. Sema only left me feeling sick without any weight loss. YMMV

Appreciate it — I’m also leaning toward Tirz as my starting point.

leo_123 said:

Skidude said:

Tirz gets my vote as well.

Here's why:

1. superior overall outcomes in studies
   
2. supply over the long haul
   
3. studies looking at it alongside other treatments
   
4. #1 factor: It did the job for me!

Tirz comes out on top!

leo_123 said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

Appreciate the thorough rundown—that clears a lot up! I'm leaning toward kicking things off with tirz and then watching how my system reacts.

leo_123 said:

Mood said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

My wife went from 215 down to 115 on tirz — close to 100lbs lost. For maintenance she's now on reta and focusing on building muscle. I'm on reta too (not much to lose; mostly a recomp). One thing to note: reta bumped my rhr up by 10 bpm.

My daughter was on sema and once she reached 1mg, she felt awful every week following her shot. She did lose weight, but a lot of it came from vomiting 3 days a week. At 17, sema was the only choice we had. We switched her to tirz and she's improved a lot and is still losing.

So, to sum up:

1. Tirz

2. Reta

99. Sema

Really useful way of looking at it—appreciate you laying that out! At this point I’m pretty much leaning toward tirz as my starting point.

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

Tirzepatide is the only one I've used, and I'm really happy with it! After 5 months, I'm down 30lbs and my activity levels haven't changed at all. My eating habits—both how much and how well I eat—have gotten better simply because my tastes, reactions, and cravings shifted, and I didn't have to work hard at it. The food noise and obsession? Completely gone!

On top of that, studies combining tirz with Eloralintide look really promising, so if you ever decide to add something later on, it seems like it would make a nice little stack.

That's impressive movement, particularly since your activity hasn't changed!

Oh, you're welcome! I have a feeling tirz will work out well for you.

One more thing, given that you like cats: there's a cat thread over in the Off Topic forum — drop by if you'd like to share or browse pics of kitties (the feline kind )

Tirz is the one I'm also leaning toward, and I'll take a look at that cat thread

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

Right now, the one that appears to be used most often is tirzepatide.

The reason it shows up so often is that it's available both through "big pharma" and via the gray market. Its side effects and so on are already known.

By the way, you have the option of hitting +quote on whichever posts you'd like to reply to, then combining all of those quotes so you can respond to them together in a single post, rather than replying to them one by one.

Appreciate the suggestion!

Multi-quote is something you should pick up. lol

I could not agree more with this!……

 

[leo_123]

HouseCat said:

BNLFL said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

Right now, the one that appears to be used most often is tirzepatide.

leo_123 said:

finesse said:

If I had to pick, I'd say Triz

80lbs gone after 11 months. That's with watching what I eat, lifting weights and getting my steps in.

Currently giving reta a go, though the appetite suppression doesn't hit as hard — or maybe your body torches more calories, so you end up hungrier... Hard to say

Appreciate you describing how it went for you — from what I can tell, tirzepatide remains the option that the most people keep reporting good results with.

leo_123 said:

BrightCandle said:

Tirz, based on what the trial data shows, it looks fairly obvious that it works 2 times as well as Sema, and it comes with fewer side effects.

So that's one more mark in tirz's favor

leo_123 said:

5byfive said:

Price might be the only thing that makes Sema a better pick than Tirz, as far as I can tell. Tirz simply comes out ahead. The results are stronger, and even more significant is that it brings fewer side effects. On top of that, Tirz has become fairly affordable, so price doesn't hold up as much of a reason anymore. Tirz is the way to go,

That makes sense!

leo_123 said:

CJsMom said:

I began on Sema and titrated up to the maximum dose as recommended, after which I made the switch to Tirz. When I was on the 2.4 Sema, the compounding company advised beginning Tirz at 9mg. The weight began coming off once more, and I noticed Tirz came with fewer side effects. While on Sema, I frequently experienced mild nausea. With Tirz there was no nausea, though constipation was a significant issue at the start. That resolved after a few weeks once I started eating prunes daily. I'm still using Tirz and have lately moved to a 5 day instead of 7 day schedule in an attempt to break through a stall. Whether that helps isn't clear yet. For me, Tirz turned out to be the better option. That said, each person's body responds in its own way. My own view is that Tirz delivers stronger results while causing fewer side effects.

I appreciate you laying out the differences so thoroughly!

leo_123 said:

mtomm said:

A lot of folks criticize Sema, yet for me it did the job, and in my view every GLP1 deserves a place as an option. After being on a maintenance dose of Sema, I made the switch to Tirz a few months back. These days I use Tirz to maintain. Sema gave me noticeably greater appetite suppression, and that's something I really miss.

When it comes to side effects, sure, Sema might come with more, but my take is that with whichever route you pick, it's simply about handling them.

Best of luck, and make the most of this journey. For me, it's been great.

Appreciate the input—Tirz is likely where I'll start.

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

Tirzepatide is the only one I've used, and I'm really happy with it! After 5 months, I'm down 30lbs and my activity levels haven't changed at all. My eating habits—both how much and how well I eat—have gotten better simply because my tastes, reactions, and cravings shifted, and I didn't have to work hard at it. The food noise and obsession? Completely gone!

On top of that, studies combining tirz with Eloralintide look really promising, so if you ever decide to add something later on, it seems like it would make a nice little stack.

That's impressive movement, particularly since your activity hasn't changed!

leo_123 said:

Fostradamus said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

Tirz, no contest. Having tried both, tirz gave me much better results. Sema only left me feeling sick without any weight loss. YMMV

Appreciate it — I’m also leaning toward Tirz as my starting point.

leo_123 said:

Skidude said:

Tirz gets my vote as well.

Here's why:

1. superior overall outcomes in studies
   
2. supply over the long haul
   
3. studies looking at it alongside other treatments
   
4. #1 factor: It did the job for me!

Tirz comes out on top!

leo_123 said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

Appreciate the thorough rundown—that clears a lot up! I'm leaning toward kicking things off with tirz and then watching how my system reacts.

leo_123 said:

Mood said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

My wife went from 215 down to 115 on tirz — close to 100lbs lost. For maintenance she's now on reta and focusing on building muscle. I'm on reta too (not much to lose; mostly a recomp). One thing to note: reta bumped my rhr up by 10 bpm.

My daughter was on sema and once she reached 1mg, she felt awful every week following her shot. She did lose weight, but a lot of it came from vomiting 3 days a week. At 17, sema was the only choice we had. We switched her to tirz and she's improved a lot and is still losing.

So, to sum up:

1. Tirz

2. Reta

99. Sema

Really useful way of looking at it—appreciate you laying that out! At this point I’m pretty much leaning toward tirz as my starting point.

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

leo_123 said:

HouseCat said:

Tirzepatide is the only one I've used, and I'm really happy with it! After 5 months, I'm down 30lbs and my activity levels haven't changed at all. My eating habits—both how much and how well I eat—have gotten better simply because my tastes, reactions, and cravings shifted, and I didn't have to work hard at it. The food noise and obsession? Completely gone!

On top of that, studies combining tirz with Eloralintide look really promising, so if you ever decide to add something later on, it seems like it would make a nice little stack.

That's impressive movement, particularly since your activity hasn't changed!

Oh, you're welcome! I have a feeling tirz will work out well for you.

One more thing, given that you like cats: there's a cat thread over in the Off Topic forum — drop by if you'd like to share or browse pics of kitties (the feline kind )

Tirz is the one I'm also leaning toward, and I'll take a look at that cat thread

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

JohannesSweden77 said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

What makes retarutide a bad option?

Retatrutide has come up in a few discussions, and I’m still working on getting a clearer picture of it.

At this point, my main focus is on the options that see more frequent use, because there seems to be more data from real-world experience with those. Thanks for putting the idea out there, though.

That makes total sense to me. I'm in the same spot with Reta — I haven't started it yet. I've got some on hand for whenever I make that call. Plenty of folks in this community know their way around retarutide. As for me, I've been on tirzepatide since November of last year

Right now, the one that appears to be used most often is tirzepatide.

The reason it shows up so often is that it's available both through "big pharma" and via the gray market. Its side effects and so on are already known.

By the way, you have the option of hitting +quote on whichever posts you'd like to reply to, then combining all of those quotes so you can respond to them together in a single post, rather than replying to them one by one.

Appreciate the suggestion!

Multi-quote is something you should pick up. lol

For the longest time I had no clue how to pull this off (plus, just this morning I spaced on doing it while half-awake and hurrying into a group buy LOL), and it left me scratching my head since it comes in handy—particularly when you're replying to several folks in one go, or when you want to address just one specific point or sentence from a post without dragging the entire thing along.

Multi quoting, step by step:

-Select the text you'd like to answer, and a small black box pops up.

-Hit “+Quote.” Repeat as many times as you like for other comments. Everything gets stored in its bank: up top, a light blue banner appears reading “Message added to multi quote.”

-Once you're set to respond, find the box sitting to the left of the “post reply” box—there you'll spot “Insert quotes.” A window will open.

-Should the quotes come out in the wrong sequence, drag them into the order you want, then hit “quote messages,” and they'll appear as tidy little blue rectangles inside your message. If you accidentally quoted something, there's a “remove” box on the right side.

Hope this helps!

That’s genuinely useful, thanks!

 

[leo_123]

jailbird said:

I'd pick Tirz over Sema too, and not just for how well it works — it tends to come with milder side effects as well.

Appreciate you posting that! At this point I doubt I’ll pick sema.

nurseratchit said:

leo_123 said:

Hey all,

I really appreciate everyone who chimed in on my introduction post—hearing about your various journeys has given me a lot to think about.

At this point, I’m still stuck on which one to go with: semaglutide or tirzepatide.

Based on what I’ve gathered, they both appear to work, though their characteristics differ a bit. I’m trying to figure out which would be the better fit for someone like me—hitting a fat loss plateau even with steady training and diet.

If you’ve used one or both, what tipped the scales for you? And did the results line up with what you expected?

Thanks for any thoughts—I’m still absorbing all of this.

Despite what many people say, there isn't a single optimal option—just the one that suits you, and you'll only find that out by trying. Whichever route you take, you can usually reduce most side effects by beginning at a low dose and increasing it gradually. The typical advice is to remain at every dose level for 4 weeks.

That clears things up for me — I’m also thinking it makes sense to begin at a low dose and move up gradually.

 

[Johnny D]

CJsMom said:

I began on Sema and titrated up to the maximum dose as recommended, after which I made the switch to Tirz. When I was on the 2.4 Sema, the compounding company advised beginning Tirz at 9mg. The weight began coming off once more, and I noticed Tirz came with fewer side effects. While on Sema, I frequently experienced mild nausea. With Tirz there was no nausea, though constipation was a significant issue at the start. That resolved after a few weeks once I started eating prunes daily. I'm still using Tirz and have lately moved to a 5 day instead of 7 day schedule in an attempt to break through a stall. Whether that helps isn't clear yet. For me, Tirz turned out to be the better option. That said, each person's body responds in its own way. My own view is that Tirz delivers stronger results while causing fewer side effects.

Before you began the Tirz, how many weeks of a break did you have???

Or is it the case that you skip breaks entirely and move directly onto the Tirz??

 

[CJsMom]

There was no pause whatsoever; the transition happened straight away.

 

[SVT810E]

woundcarping said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

If the goal is dropping around 15%, pointing someone toward Reta doesn't seem like a smart call.

For me, I moved from Tirz over to Reta at the 4-week mark, since I was aiming for a 30-35% loss and Reta fit that better.

At around 15%, that’s the point where I’d generally suggest reta instead of tirz. Yes, full-dose tirz gives an average weight loss of 22.5%, but that’s just the average. Roughly 25% of people on 15mg lose under 15%, and that percentage keeps rising steadily above that. Reta has a better chance of getting you across the finish line.

 

[Pali_Bali]

BrightCandle said:

Tirz, based on what the trial data shows, it looks fairly obvious that it works 2 times as well as Sema, and it comes with fewer side effects.

That matches what happened to me. Sema gave me reflux so severe that the lower molars began to wear away, and my dentist ended up rebuilding those surfaces. Tirz also brings on reflux for me, though the intensity is lower.

 

[woundcarping]

SVT810E said:

woundcarping said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

If the goal is dropping around 15%, pointing someone toward Reta doesn't seem like a smart call.

For me, I moved from Tirz over to Reta at the 4-week mark, since I was aiming for a 30-35% loss and Reta fit that better.

At around 15%, that’s the point where I’d generally suggest reta instead of tirz. Yes, full-dose tirz gives an average weight loss of 22.5%, but that’s just the average. Roughly 25% of people on 15mg lose under 15%, and that percentage keeps rising steadily above that. Reta has a better chance of getting you across the finish line.

With Tirz, 78% of people achieved weight reduction of 15% or more. Even at just 5mg/week, average weight loss reached 16%.

Reta isn't something I'm against—I use a good amount, have dropped 25%, and still have roughly 10% left to lose. When it comes to studies, track record, and avoiding GCGR stimulation, Tirz has the cleaner profile. At 4mg, Reta produced an average loss of 19%. Avoiding overshoot matters somewhat, though for someone paying attention it isn't difficult to manage.

 

[SVT810E]

woundcarping said:

SVT810E said:

woundcarping said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

If the goal is dropping around 15%, pointing someone toward Reta doesn't seem like a smart call.

For me, I moved from Tirz over to Reta at the 4-week mark, since I was aiming for a 30-35% loss and Reta fit that better.

At around 15%, that’s the point where I’d generally suggest reta instead of tirz. Yes, full-dose tirz gives an average weight loss of 22.5%, but that’s just the average. Roughly 25% of people on 15mg lose under 15%, and that percentage keeps rising steadily above that. Reta has a better chance of getting you across the finish line.

With Tirz, 78% of people achieved weight reduction of 15% or more. Even at just 5mg/week, average weight loss reached 16%.

Reta isn't something I'm against—I use a good amount, have dropped 25%, and still have roughly 10% left to lose. When it comes to studies, track record, and avoiding GCGR stimulation, Tirz has the cleaner profile. At 4mg, Reta produced an average loss of 19%. Avoiding overshoot matters somewhat, though for someone paying attention it isn't difficult to manage.

I’m not claiming tirz lacks effectiveness. My point is that someone aiming to shed 15% of their body weight has roughly a 25% likelihood of falling short. Those chances get worse when the goal is 20% or 25%. Reta isn’t flawless either, though its odds are stronger.

Averages work well for fast side-by-side looks, yet actual outcomes can diverge a lot from those figures. Ultimately, what matters to each person is their own specific result.

 

[Skidude]

SVT810E said:

woundcarping said:

SVT810E said:

woundcarping said:

Spork said:

If you were to ask folks who've used all 3 what they'd recommend, the answer would probably be:

Assuming you're beginning from scratch and plan to source through the gray market, retatrutide is the place to start.

Speaking for myself, my first medication was semaglutide, and I eventually reached what was then the maximum dose, 2.4mg. Weight loss was barely noticeable for me, and the GI side effects were terrible... the gastric pain was intense!

After that I moved to tirzpeatide, but since semaglutide had come first, a larger tirzepatide dose was needed before it worked. Nothing changed on the scale until I reached 10mg, and these days I'm on 15mg.

A common anecdotal pattern in the community involves individuals who move from tirzepatide to retatrutide and say the appetite suppression feels nowhere near what tirzepatide gave them.

That said, clinical trials indicate that, valid as that observation is, retatrutide delivers better weight loss outcomes.

Had retatrutide been the first thing you tried, there'd be no baseline for comparison, which is likely an advantage.

Beyond that, beginning with retatrutide and titrating up properly ought to get you to your target weight. Should you stall out at a plateau, compounds such as eloralintide - whose gray market availability will keep growing - become the addition to your toolkit for pushing past it.

So honestly, speaking from experience, "if I knew then what I knew now," my ranking would be:

1) Retatrutide, with plans to add Eloralintide later on

2) Tirzepatide

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) Semaglutide

I just can't recommend the less effective option that generally comes with more side effects.

If the goal is dropping around 15%, pointing someone toward Reta doesn't seem like a smart call.

For me, I moved from Tirz over to Reta at the 4-week mark, since I was aiming for a 30-35% loss and Reta fit that better.

At around 15%, that’s the point where I’d generally suggest reta instead of tirz. Yes, full-dose tirz gives an average weight loss of 22.5%, but that’s just the average. Roughly 25% of people on 15mg lose under 15%, and that percentage keeps rising steadily above that. Reta has a better chance of getting you across the finish line.

With Tirz, 78% of people achieved weight reduction of 15% or more. Even at just 5mg/week, average weight loss reached 16%.

Reta isn't something I'm against—I use a good amount, have dropped 25%, and still have roughly 10% left to lose. When it comes to studies, track record, and avoiding GCGR stimulation, Tirz has the cleaner profile. At 4mg, Reta produced an average loss of 19%. Avoiding overshoot matters somewhat, though for someone paying attention it isn't difficult to manage.

I’m not claiming tirz lacks effectiveness. My point is that someone aiming to shed 15% of their body weight has roughly a 25% likelihood of falling short. Those chances get worse when the goal is 20% or 25%. Reta isn’t flawless either, though its odds are stronger.

Averages work well for fast side-by-side looks, yet actual outcomes can diverge a lot from those figures. Ultimately, what matters to each person is their own specific result.

The intricacy surrounding these GLP1s really is striking to me.

Diet, exercise, titration, and how each person responds — there are so many variables.

On Tirz I dropped 27% in 7 months, YMMV

 

[anotherusername]

Why is the comparison semaglutide versus tirzepatide rather than tirzepatide versus retatrutide? Having made the change from tirzepatide over to retatrutide myself, my advice would be either to begin with retatrutide, or, if tirzepatide is preferable because you want to steer clear of retatrutide's heart rate elevation, then simply stay on tirzepatide the whole way. Once you have been using tirzepatide, retatrutide comes across as somewhat lackluster, since its GLP1 component is lower, yet from a clinical standpoint reta delivers considerably more effectiveness.

 

[SVT810E]

anotherusername said:

Why is the comparison semaglutide versus tirzepatide rather than tirzepatide versus retatrutide? Having made the change from tirzepatide over to retatrutide myself, my advice would be either to begin with retatrutide, or, if tirzepatide is preferable because you want to steer clear of retatrutide's heart rate elevation, then simply stay on tirzepatide the whole way. Once you have been using tirzepatide, retatrutide comes across as somewhat lackluster, since its GLP1 component is lower, yet from a clinical standpoint reta delivers considerably more effectiveness.

The reason is that telehealth companies and compounding pharmacies bring people into this world with semaglutide positioned as the entry-level choice, which lets them tack on a higher price when someone moves up to tirzepatide. There's no solid clinical justification for steering that many patients toward sema, and the real manufacturing cost of these drugs is roughly the same, but the good-better-best pricing model is where the big profits are.

Given how inexpensive everything is around here, choosing semaglutide—or even giving it a second thought—makes almost no sense, unless tirz or reta didn't sit well with you (and in that situation sema likely won't work out either, though you might get extremely fortunate).

 

[woundcarping]

SVT810E said:

anotherusername said:

Why is the comparison semaglutide versus tirzepatide rather than tirzepatide versus retatrutide? Having made the change from tirzepatide over to retatrutide myself, my advice would be either to begin with retatrutide, or, if tirzepatide is preferable because you want to steer clear of retatrutide's heart rate elevation, then simply stay on tirzepatide the whole way. Once you have been using tirzepatide, retatrutide comes across as somewhat lackluster, since its GLP1 component is lower, yet from a clinical standpoint reta delivers considerably more effectiveness.

The reason is that telehealth companies and compounding pharmacies bring people into this world with semaglutide positioned as the entry-level choice, which lets them tack on a higher price when someone moves up to tirzepatide. There's no solid clinical justification for steering that many patients toward sema, and the real manufacturing cost of these drugs is roughly the same, but the good-better-best pricing model is where the big profits are.

Given how inexpensive everything is around here, choosing semaglutide—or even giving it a second thought—makes almost no sense, unless tirz or reta didn't sit well with you (and in that situation sema likely won't work out either, though you might get extremely fortunate).

I pair Sema with Reta; without that combo, Sema alone wouldn’t do much for me.

 

[HouseCat]

Pali_Bali said:

BrightCandle said:

Tirz, based on what the trial data shows, it looks fairly obvious that it works 2 times as well as Sema, and it comes with fewer side effects.

That matches what happened to me. Sema gave me reflux so severe that the lower molars began to wear away, and my dentist ended up rebuilding those surfaces. Tirz also brings on reflux for me, though the intensity is lower.

For acid reflux, Amazon sells something called Reflux Raft that could be worth a look. Because it isn’t a pharmaceutical, there’s no need to worry about PPIs. Thanks to it, titrating up went from a hellscape to a breeze!

 

[leo_123]

SVT810E said:

anotherusername said:

Why is the comparison semaglutide versus tirzepatide rather than tirzepatide versus retatrutide? Having made the change from tirzepatide over to retatrutide myself, my advice would be either to begin with retatrutide, or, if tirzepatide is preferable because you want to steer clear of retatrutide's heart rate elevation, then simply stay on tirzepatide the whole way. Once you have been using tirzepatide, retatrutide comes across as somewhat lackluster, since its GLP1 component is lower, yet from a clinical standpoint reta delivers considerably more effectiveness.

The reason is that telehealth companies and compounding pharmacies bring people into this world with semaglutide positioned as the entry-level choice, which lets them tack on a higher price when someone moves up to tirzepatide. There's no solid clinical justification for steering that many patients toward sema, and the real manufacturing cost of these drugs is roughly the same, but the good-better-best pricing model is where the big profits are.

Given how inexpensive everything is around here, choosing semaglutide—or even giving it a second thought—makes almost no sense, unless tirz or reta didn't sit well with you (and in that situation sema likely won't work out either, though you might get extremely fortunate).

That makes total sense! Because I'm new to peptides, I want to stick with choices that have more real-world use and feedback behind them.

Reading what's been shared here has really clarified how these two differ.

 

[TazaTaza]

Tirz.

The cost is excellent. In my opinion, the grey market has its manufacturing a bit more dialed in than Reta. I've come across more reports of Reta turning into gel or going cloudy for people. Or simply no peptides at all recently. Sure, any product can run into problems—like how a large T batch ended up full of endotoxins earlier this year—but based on what I've observed on average, Reta tends to be finicky for folks and when reconstituting.

Tirz is fairly foolproof and bulletproof, and people have even used it after freezing the reconstituted version.

And IMO appetite suppression is much stronger without needing to add a food suppressant. Fewer sides, it's less expensive, people generally have fewer problems with it when reconstituting, and far more real-world data.

People on average complain that Reta gives them GI issues, elevated heart rate and/or anhedonia.

 

[leo_123]

TazaTaza said:

Tirz.

The cost is excellent. In my opinion, the grey market has its manufacturing a bit more dialed in than Reta. I've come across more reports of Reta turning into gel or going cloudy for people. Or simply no peptides at all recently. Sure, any product can run into problems—like how a large T batch ended up full of endotoxins earlier this year—but based on what I've observed on average, Reta tends to be finicky for folks and when reconstituting.

Tirz is fairly foolproof and bulletproof, and people have even used it after freezing the reconstituted version.

And IMO appetite suppression is much stronger without needing to add a food suppressant. Fewer sides, it's less expensive, people generally have fewer problems with it when reconstituting, and far more real-world data.

People on average complain that Reta gives them GI issues, elevated heart rate and/or anhedonia.

Appreciate the insights — reading through all these experiences has pushed me closer to thinking Tirz is the smarter place for me to begin.

 

[Pali_Bali]

HouseCat said:

Pali_Bali said:

BrightCandle said:

Tirz, based on what the trial data shows, it looks fairly obvious that it works 2 times as well as Sema, and it comes with fewer side effects.

That matches what happened to me. Sema gave me reflux so severe that the lower molars began to wear away, and my dentist ended up rebuilding those surfaces. Tirz also brings on reflux for me, though the intensity is lower.

For acid reflux, Amazon sells something called Reflux Raft that could be worth a look. Because it isn’t a pharmaceutical, there’s no need to worry about PPIs. Thanks to it, titrating up went from a hellscape to a breeze!

Thanks so much! I’ve been on omeprazole, and I’d like to find something that doesn’t come with as many unpleasant side effects. On Tirz, I haven’t been able to go above 2.5mg because I’m not willing to increase my omeprazole dose.

 

[BNLFL]

leo_123 said:

TazaTaza said:

Tirz.

The cost is excellent. In my opinion, the grey market has its manufacturing a bit more dialed in than Reta. I've come across more reports of Reta turning into gel or going cloudy for people. Or simply no peptides at all recently. Sure, any product can run into problems—like how a large T batch ended up full of endotoxins earlier this year—but based on what I've observed on average, Reta tends to be finicky for folks and when reconstituting.

Tirz is fairly foolproof and bulletproof, and people have even used it after freezing the reconstituted version.

And IMO appetite suppression is much stronger without needing to add a food suppressant. Fewer sides, it's less expensive, people generally have fewer problems with it when reconstituting, and far more real-world data.

People on average complain that Reta gives them GI issues, elevated heart rate and/or anhedonia.

Appreciate the insights — reading through all these experiences has pushed me closer to thinking Tirz is the smarter place for me to begin.

Just a tip: he acts like he's got all the answers. That's how I see it.