Titrating down and Efficacy

Mayostardayonnaise

Mayostardayonnaise

Explorer
Joined
Sep 21, 2025
Messages
68
Reaction score
76
Location
Oklahoma
I’m starting to lower my dose of Tirz. I’ve basically reached my goal weight of 170 — my end target was 160, but I plan to shed that very gradually while focusing on muscle building.

For anyone who has lowered their dose or is in the process: did you ever drop too far initially (meaning the appetite suppression wasn’t enough, or you put on weight), and then chose to bump it back up slightly the following week? If that happened, how did it influence how well the medication worked, if at all?
 
Wanting to shed 6% of your body weight while simultaneously figuring out a maintenance dose strikes me as a puzzling combination.

My own approach rests on the premise that the dose I use for cutting sits above whatever dose keeps me at equilibrium, i.e. maintenance. The aim is for a bit of abdominal definition — nothing dramatic, just the upper section casting a faint line under really good lighting would satisfy me. Around the point I hit that, I'll begin stepping the dose downward, using a simple moving average of my weight to fine-tune it. Some oscillation is inevitable, and I'll use DEXA scans to monitor and recalibrate the baseline as body composition shifts. On top of that, signal noise has to be accounted for, so I'll set up some kind of practical guardrails — roughly 185lb +5lb/-3lb (exact figures still to be settled) — so the whole thing can settle into a longer-term cruise with less need for constant checking and micromanagement.

If you try to set your dose from static week-to-week weigh-ins, you'll just end up chasing your own tail.
 
Thanks 🙏 that clears up the process quite a bit for me. Honestly, I don't know what my weight ought to be, but I'm near enough to 160 that my mind is going a little “f it let’s start reducing”. Maybe I acted too soon. The push to reduce comes from me not eating enough - over the past month, I'd say getting above 1300/day has been genuinely difficult. I'm fine with the idea of staying on it possibly forever.

P.S. Not gonna lie, I am nervous about maintenance.
 
Maybe the best move is to not stress about it too much,

Mayostardayonnaise said:

Thanks 🙏 that clears up the process quite a bit for me. Honestly, I don't know what my weight ought to be, but I'm near enough to 160 that my mind is going a little “f it let’s start reducing”. Maybe I acted too soon. The push to reduce comes from me not eating enough - over the past month, I'd say getting above 1300/day has been genuinely difficult. I'm fine with the idea of staying on it possibly forever.

P.S. Not gonna lie, I am nervous about maintenance.
Click to expand...

What's your subjective experience? At 170lb, 1300 calories doesn't seem absurdly low for a cut. That's roughly the deficit I've been running for 22 weeks; I'm down 54lb, and that's before factoring in the ~2-4lb from water and creatine (so 56-58lb total, most likely).

Do you have data on your weight loss over time? I use an app, a spreadsheet, and scans to work out my deficit and forecast where I'll end up and when.

Getting too skinny isn't something I worry about much - it's never been a problem for me before.😂 As long as I feel OK and the metrics look fine, I don't get stressed. Once I'm at maintenance, accidentally falling below the 170s seems unlikely, since my target is probably 180-190lb. Turning the knob either direction isn't difficult, and with sensible guardrails there shouldn't be much anxiety around it.
 
If you take it slow, there’s nothing to fear about maintenance. WoundCarping’s advice is worth following. With 10 lbs still to go, titration shouldn’t be your focus. Once you lower the dose, weight loss will probably halt completely. That’s what happened to me.

At the moment I’m tapering off Reta, and it’s a gradual process I check weekly. I had 20 lbs to lose (2.5 months), never went above 4mg, and at first figured, "I’ll simply halve the dose for a few weeks, then halve it again for a few more, and keep going like that."

That didn’t work. Hunger can return fiercely, and after losing weight your body operates in a more energy-efficient mode. When refeeding begins, metabolism doesn’t necessarily bounce back as fast as appetite, so there’s little room for error. I began putting on weight right away, even while eating fewer calories than should maintain my size and activity level.

These days I reduce by only 0.5 mg every two to three weeks, while raising daily calories by 100–200. If my weight trend rises, I either keep the dose steady or increase it back by 0.5 mg. If I stay stable for two weeks at the higher caloric intake, I lower it again.

A smart scale or a trend-tracking app is a big help. Don’t base decisions on a single weigh-in; follow the trend.

Getting off Reta has taken me nearly as long as losing the weight did. Bringing hunger signalling back gradually has been far more bearable than cutting the dose too fast. One unexpected plus: by moving so slowly, my Reta OMAD eating schedule has remained unchanged, just with more calories. I still don’t want to snack midday unless a hard workout leaves me needing refuelling.
 
DunningKruger said:

If you take it slow, there’s nothing to fear about maintenance. WoundCarping’s advice is worth following. With 10 lbs still to go, titration shouldn’t be your focus. Once you lower the dose, weight loss will probably halt completely. That’s what happened to me.

At the moment I’m tapering off Reta, and it’s a gradual process I check weekly. I had 20 lbs to lose (2.5 months), never went above 4mg, and at first figured, "I’ll simply halve the dose for a few weeks, then halve it again for a few more, and keep going like that."

That didn’t work. Hunger can return fiercely, and after losing weight your body operates in a more energy-efficient mode. When refeeding begins, metabolism doesn’t necessarily bounce back as fast as appetite, so there’s little room for error. I began putting on weight right away, even while eating fewer calories than should maintain my size and activity level.

These days I reduce by only 0.5 mg every two to three weeks, while raising daily calories by 100–200. If my weight trend rises, I either keep the dose steady or increase it back by 0.5 mg. If I stay stable for two weeks at the higher caloric intake, I lower it again.

A smart scale or a trend-tracking app is a big help. Don’t base decisions on a single weigh-in; follow the trend.

Getting off Reta has taken me nearly as long as losing the weight did. Bringing hunger signalling back gradually has been far more bearable than cutting the dose too fast. One unexpected plus: by moving so slowly, my Reta OMAD eating schedule has remained unchanged, just with more calories. I still don’t want to snack midday unless a hard workout leaves me needing refuelling.
Click to expand...

Those numbers aren't large at all!

My current plan is to reduce my dose by 1/3 once maintenance begins. Whether appetite and similar factors change remains to be seen, though realistically I'm not anticipating anything extreme on the appetite front. At most, perhaps I could reach 8mg/week, but that's still uncertain. From a practical standpoint, given what the existing data shows about long-term risks, it doesn't make much difference either way.
 
I still need to dig into this further—seriously, thank you both. Immediate intense hunger plus the chance of meaningful weight regain isn’t a tradeoff I’m willing to make. I’m keeping my dose at 6. What you both laid out is logical, and I don’t believe I’ve held this weight for a long enough stretch to attempt ANY of that at this point.
 
Mayostardayonnaise said:

I still need to dig into this further—seriously, thank you both. Immediate intense hunger plus the chance of meaningful weight regain isn’t a tradeoff I’m willing to make. I’m keeping my dose at 6. What you both laid out is logical, and I don’t believe I’ve held this weight for a long enough stretch to attempt ANY of that at this point.
Click to expand...

TLDR:

If you're sharp enough to step on the scale regularly, stay aware of your hunger and what you're eating, and don't let panic take over, then tapering the dose is really nothing dramatic. Those who went all the way to 0mg didn't suddenly blow up overnight, and they didn't need some kind of Chinese muzzle handy.

"Ravenous hunger" sounds terrifying, but in practice it's not a huge deal and not worth freaking out over or turning into a soap opera.

Picture your maintenance sitting at roughly 1800 calories. You take too little of your dose and suddenly feel "ravenously hungry." Now imagine that in some wild fit of calorie-destroying fury you put away 5000 calories on day 1, wake up, and do the exact same thing on day 2. By day 3 you remember you're a functioning adult with at least a little self-awareness and some tools to keep hunger from running the show. So you take the rest of your usual dose that you'd skipped... but of course it takes a day to peak, and you eat 4000 calories because you just can't stop yourself. On day 4 you wake up so stuffed you feel sick, and your Chinese food muzzle is fully back in action.

Bottom line, worst case you put on 2.5lb of fat that takes a few weeks for the muzzle to sort out. Water weight variations would almost certainly push the peak gain number higher.

Sure, I haven't actually done it yet, but that constant ravenous hunger doesn't happen unless you let it. Packing on 2.5lb of fat in 3 days takes massive deliberate effort and freakish metabolic efficiency. Dramatic fear-mongering gets under my skin; that's a general gripe more than about this thread, but "ravenous hunger" and "substantial weight gain" clearly hit a nerve.

From the trial data's rough averages, where about 2/3 of participants were on 15mg/week of Tirz and 1/3 on 10mg, and then went to 0mg:

The typical gain over a year was .6lb/week. The biggest increase came in the first couple of months, topping out around .8-1lb/week.
 
Mayostardayonnaise said:

I’m starting to lower my dose of Tirz. I’ve basically reached my goal weight of 170 — my end target was 160, but I plan to shed that very gradually while focusing on muscle building.

For anyone who has lowered their dose or is in the process: did you ever drop too far initially (meaning the appetite suppression wasn’t enough, or you put on weight), and then chose to bump it back up slightly the following week? If that happened, how did it influence how well the medication worked, if at all?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, no research studies have examined the optimal approach for moving from weight loss into maintenance while using glp-1 medications. That leaves us mostly with anecdotal evidence. While that kind of information can still be useful, the key takeaway is that each person has to figure out what works for them.

I still need to drop about 20lbs before I hit goal, so maintenance isn't where I am yet. Once I do get there, my "plan" is to remain at whatever tirzepatide dose I'm taking for a minimum of a year. The clinical trials have shown us that weight loss with these medications levels off, and participants who continued at the same tirzepatide dose kept their weights steady. Holding a stable weight for a long stretch would be a new and welcome experience for me, since I've never managed it before. So honestly, I feel no urgency to quit tirzepatide, and I'll likely take it for the rest of my life. I'm also not in any hurry to titrate down quickly, or even at all. Down the road, if my weight has been stable for a year or so, I'd be open to attempting a slow, step-by-step taper.
 
Another thing to keep in mind: after dropping a significant amount of weight (for example, 20-30 lbs), your body will keep firing off hunger cues once you shift into maintenance mode. Those signals will come on stronger than they did before the weight came off, since the body is now trying to reclaim those 20-30 lbs. So it's worth asking whether tapering all the way off could just lead to regaining everything. In my view, the smarter approach is to reduce to a dose that holds your weight steady without relying on sheer willpower. After that, stay on that dose for at least a few years — though longer would be better if possible. Research indicates that 80% of people who shed weight put it back on within 2-5 years… and certain studies suggest it may take 5+ years before the body settles into a new "set point," at which it stops fighting to regain those 20-30 lbs.
 
I agree that the amount of weight lost matters. Whether someone has dropped 50 kilos or 100lbs is a very different scenario from 20 lbs, and if the aim is to hold onto a big weight reduction, then tapering the dose very cautiously makes sense — or even better, simply remain at the dose that got you there, assuming you had plateaued by that point and the weight loss had already halted. If you were still shedding weight once you hit your target, then lowering doses is probably sensible.

Ultimately, the maintenance phase is what truly counts. It is the long term that determines health outcomes, and it is here that GLP drugs dramatically outperform any weight loss approach based on diet and exercise, since keeping the weight off long term takes very little effort — just 1 injection per week — instead of years of starving yourself. The long term success rates of the 2 strategies mirror this gap.

The only genuinely important concern when reducing doses after reaching target is to have a plan for what to do if or when weight creeps back up, and not to let it spiral before you restart or increase doses.

Broadly, in the studies, once weight loss had ceased, staying on that dose kept the weight off long term for up to 4 years of follow up, so do not be shocked if you need to remain on the dose you were taking. But quite a few people on this forum appear to be using much lower maintenance doses than their losing doses, so who knows.
 
longestyards said:

Another thing to keep in mind: after dropping a significant amount of weight (for example, 20-30 lbs), your body will keep firing off hunger cues once you shift into maintenance mode. Those signals will come on stronger than they did before the weight came off, since the body is now trying to reclaim those 20-30 lbs. So it's worth asking whether tapering all the way off could just lead to regaining everything. In my view, the smarter approach is to reduce to a dose that holds your weight steady without relying on sheer willpower. After that, stay on that dose for at least a few years — though longer would be better if possible. Research indicates that 80% of people who shed weight put it back on within 2-5 years… and certain studies suggest it may take 5+ years before the body settles into a new "set point," at which it stops fighting to regain those 20-30 lbs.
Click to expand...
Over the 3 1/2 years since I began dropping weight—145 kg down to 75 kg, then 75 kg to 65kg—whether or not GLP drugs were involved, my daily calorie needs for staying weight neutral have stayed the same: roughly 1600-1900 kcal/day. There has been no indication of movement in either direction, and it is almost precisely half of what it was when I weighed 145kg. I am a 58yo male, 167cm. I wish that last statement was true, but what I have experienced is that losing weight lowers energy expenditure and raises hunger, and this has held up over the long term, with no sign of improvement either in 2012-2015 or 2022 to 2026—not quite 5 years, but without GLP drugs hunger was always there after losing weight. Possibly the biggest benefit of GLP drugs is their ability to control hunger, even in this post weight loss state.
 
lessthanhalf said:

I agree that the amount of weight lost matters. Whether someone has dropped 50 kilos or 100lbs is a very different scenario from 20 lbs, and if the aim is to hold onto a big weight reduction, then tapering the dose very cautiously makes sense — or even better, simply remain at the dose that got you there, assuming you had plateaued by that point and the weight loss had already halted. If you were still shedding weight once you hit your target, then lowering doses is probably sensible.

Ultimately, the maintenance phase is what truly counts. It is the long term that determines health outcomes, and it is here that GLP drugs dramatically outperform any weight loss approach based on diet and exercise, since keeping the weight off long term takes very little effort — just 1 injection per week — instead of years of starving yourself. The long term success rates of the 2 strategies mirror this gap.

The only genuinely important concern when reducing doses after reaching target is to have a plan for what to do if or when weight creeps back up, and not to let it spiral before you restart or increase doses.

Broadly, in the studies, once weight loss had ceased, staying on that dose kept the weight off long term for up to 4 years of follow up, so do not be shocked if you need to remain on the dose you were taking. But quite a few people on this forum appear to be using much lower maintenance doses than their losing doses, so who knows.
Click to expand...

Absolutely — this forum has plenty of people maintaining on doses lower than what they used for weight loss, people who space out their injections, and people who combine different stacks and still maintain successfully. The lack of stronger empirical data on maintenance approaches is genuinely unfortunate. Yet even with better data, responses to these drugs vary so widely (from non-responders all the way to hyper-responders) that one person's effective strategy might not translate to another. Take a relative of mine: she dropped 50+ pounds while injecting 2.5mg of tirzepatide every week. Hard to explain. Her maintenance plan will likely end up looking quite different from the way I dose or structure my own regime.
 
I’ve gone through the same thing: once the weight came off without glp1, that stronger appetite stuck around permanently. About 4 years into maintenance now, and it takes nonstop discipline plus a great deal of willpower. What I’m hoping glp1s will do is turn this into less of a fight.
 
longestyards said:

Another thing to keep in mind: after dropping a significant amount of weight (for example, 20-30 lbs), your body will keep firing off hunger cues once you shift into maintenance mode. Those signals will come on stronger than they did before the weight came off, since the body is now trying to reclaim those 20-30 lbs. So it's worth asking whether tapering all the way off could just lead to regaining everything. In my view, the smarter approach is to reduce to a dose that holds your weight steady without relying on sheer willpower. After that, stay on that dose for at least a few years — though longer would be better if possible. Research indicates that 80% of people who shed weight put it back on within 2-5 years… and certain studies suggest it may take 5+ years before the body settles into a new "set point," at which it stops fighting to regain those 20-30 lbs.
Click to expand...
That's spot on. Research findings indicate that after significant weight reduction, ghrelin and leptin need at least 6 months to settle back to baseline. During those initial months, things can be brutal because your system is fighting to return to its 'set point' (I'm not fully convinced a 'set point' exists, but after enough cycles of gaining and losing over the years, I definitely get why keeping the weight off is so tough).

Personally, I dropped roughly 90lbs using Tirz across a year, and I've now kept it off for around a year and a half. Throughout maintenance I never lowered my dose, though I'm someone who has always been capable of 'eating through the tirz'. At this point, I'm beginning to test stacking a little Reta alongside a reduced tirz dose, mainly just for funsies.
 
lessthanhalf said:

longestyards said:

Another thing to keep in mind: after dropping a significant amount of weight (for example, 20-30 lbs), your body will keep firing off hunger cues once you shift into maintenance mode. Those signals will come on stronger than they did before the weight came off, since the body is now trying to reclaim those 20-30 lbs. So it's worth asking whether tapering all the way off could just lead to regaining everything. In my view, the smarter approach is to reduce to a dose that holds your weight steady without relying on sheer willpower. After that, stay on that dose for at least a few years — though longer would be better if possible. Research indicates that 80% of people who shed weight put it back on within 2-5 years… and certain studies suggest it may take 5+ years before the body settles into a new "set point," at which it stops fighting to regain those 20-30 lbs.
Click to expand...
Over the 3 1/2 years since I began dropping weight—145 kg down to 75 kg, then 75 kg to 65kg—whether or not GLP drugs were involved, my daily calorie needs for staying weight neutral have stayed the same: roughly 1600-1900 kcal/day. There has been no indication of movement in either direction, and it is almost precisely half of what it was when I weighed 145kg. I am a 58yo male, 167cm. I wish that last statement was true, but what I have experienced is that losing weight lowers energy expenditure and raises hunger, and this has held up over the long term, with no sign of improvement either in 2012-2015 or 2022 to 2026—not quite 5 years, but without GLP drugs hunger was always there after losing weight. Possibly the biggest benefit of GLP drugs is their ability to control hunger, even in this post weight loss state.
Click to expand...
I likely phrased that poorly, but what you described from your own experience is precisely the point I was trying to make.

LongevitybroTX said:

longestyards said:

Another thing to keep in mind: after dropping a significant amount of weight (for example, 20-30 lbs), your body will keep firing off hunger cues once you shift into maintenance mode. Those signals will come on stronger than they did before the weight came off, since the body is now trying to reclaim those 20-30 lbs. So it's worth asking whether tapering all the way off could just lead to regaining everything. In my view, the smarter approach is to reduce to a dose that holds your weight steady without relying on sheer willpower. After that, stay on that dose for at least a few years — though longer would be better if possible. Research indicates that 80% of people who shed weight put it back on within 2-5 years… and certain studies suggest it may take 5+ years before the body settles into a new "set point," at which it stops fighting to regain those 20-30 lbs.
Click to expand...
That's spot on. Research findings indicate that after significant weight reduction, ghrelin and leptin need at least 6 months to settle back to baseline. During those initial months, things can be brutal because your system is fighting to return to its 'set point' (I'm not fully convinced a 'set point' exists, but after enough cycles of gaining and losing over the years, I definitely get why keeping the weight off is so tough).

Personally, I dropped roughly 90lbs using Tirz across a year, and I've now kept it off for around a year and a half. Throughout maintenance I never lowered my dose, though I'm someone who has always been capable of 'eating through the tirz'. At this point, I'm beginning to test stacking a little Reta alongside a reduced tirz dose, mainly just for funsies.
Click to expand...
lol reta doesn't stop me from eating either. Once I get started, it's easy to keep going without stopping. I do manage to stop, though, since I'm mindful about dropping weight. Still, I completely understand what you mean.
 
LongevitybroTX said:

longestyards said:

Another thing to keep in mind: after dropping a significant amount of weight (for example, 20-30 lbs), your body will keep firing off hunger cues once you shift into maintenance mode. Those signals will come on stronger than they did before the weight came off, since the body is now trying to reclaim those 20-30 lbs. So it's worth asking whether tapering all the way off could just lead to regaining everything. In my view, the smarter approach is to reduce to a dose that holds your weight steady without relying on sheer willpower. After that, stay on that dose for at least a few years — though longer would be better if possible. Research indicates that 80% of people who shed weight put it back on within 2-5 years… and certain studies suggest it may take 5+ years before the body settles into a new "set point," at which it stops fighting to regain those 20-30 lbs.
Click to expand...
That's spot on. Research findings indicate that after significant weight reduction, ghrelin and leptin need at least 6 months to settle back to baseline. During those initial months, things can be brutal because your system is fighting to return to its 'set point' (I'm not fully convinced a 'set point' exists, but after enough cycles of gaining and losing over the years, I definitely get why keeping the weight off is so tough).

Personally, I dropped roughly 90lbs using Tirz across a year, and I've now kept it off for around a year and a half. Throughout maintenance I never lowered my dose, though I'm someone who has always been capable of 'eating through the tirz'. At this point, I'm beginning to test stacking a little Reta alongside a reduced tirz dose, mainly just for funsies.
Click to expand...

"Set point" theory comes with a lot of problems. The one that has bothered me most is the asymmetry in direction: bringing someone's set point down is quite hard, yet sliding back up to an earlier, higher set point appears to happen with ease.

Instead of a set point, I've grown to value the idea of a defended fat mass. The body settles on a particular quantity of fat that it believes it requires for survival, and it will struggle mightily to hold onto that quantity. Once fat stores fall under that threshold, the brain reacts by ramping up hunger, dampening metabolism, and sapping energy (all simultaneously) until the fat is restored.

The trouble is that this defended level can drift higher across time, yet it virtually never drops back down by itself. So a body that once defended 180 pounds of fat mass will, after years of obesity, defend 240 pounds just as stubbornly, and following weight loss will strive endlessly to return to 240, not 180.

Set point theory appears to imply that if we remain at a lower weight long enough or fine-tune our behaviors sufficiently, our bodies will settle at a lower set point. I have not come across any data indicating that anything short of bariatric surgery will leave a durable mark on a person's set point, assuming one exists at all.

I would say bariatric surgery does seem to have shifted my "set point," if I ever had one. Before surgery in 2003, I weighed 455 pounds. Since then, my weight has gone up and down, but I have never exceeded 335. That is not ideal, but it beats 455.
 
woundcarping said:

Mayostardayonnaise said:

I still need to dig into this further—seriously, thank you both. Immediate intense hunger plus the chance of meaningful weight regain isn’t a tradeoff I’m willing to make. I’m keeping my dose at 6. What you both laid out is logical, and I don’t believe I’ve held this weight for a long enough stretch to attempt ANY of that at this point.
Click to expand...

TLDR:

If you're sharp enough to step on the scale regularly, stay aware of your hunger and what you're eating, and don't let panic take over, then tapering the dose is really nothing dramatic. Those who went all the way to 0mg didn't suddenly blow up overnight, and they didn't need some kind of Chinese muzzle handy.

"Ravenous hunger" sounds terrifying, but in practice it's not a huge deal and not worth freaking out over or turning into a soap opera.

Picture your maintenance sitting at roughly 1800 calories. You take too little of your dose and suddenly feel "ravenously hungry." Now imagine that in some wild fit of calorie-destroying fury you put away 5000 calories on day 1, wake up, and do the exact same thing on day 2. By day 3 you remember you're a functioning adult with at least a little self-awareness and some tools to keep hunger from running the show. So you take the rest of your usual dose that you'd skipped... but of course it takes a day to peak, and you eat 4000 calories because you just can't stop yourself. On day 4 you wake up so stuffed you feel sick, and your Chinese food muzzle is fully back in action.

Bottom line, worst case you put on 2.5lb of fat that takes a few weeks for the muzzle to sort out. Water weight variations would almost certainly push the peak gain number higher.

Sure, I haven't actually done it yet, but that constant ravenous hunger doesn't happen unless you let it. Packing on 2.5lb of fat in 3 days takes massive deliberate effort and freakish metabolic efficiency. Dramatic fear-mongering gets under my skin; that's a general gripe more than about this thread, but "ravenous hunger" and "substantial weight gain" clearly hit a nerve.

From the trial data's rough averages, where about 2/3 of participants were on 15mg/week of Tirz and 1/3 on 10mg, and then went to 0mg:

The typical gain over a year was .6lb/week. The biggest increase came in the first couple of months, topping out around .8-1lb/week.
Click to expand...
I have to apologize, "Chinese food muzzle" has officially become my new top phrase 🤣
 
UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

woundcarping said:

Mayostardayonnaise said:

I still need to dig into this further—seriously, thank you both. Immediate intense hunger plus the chance of meaningful weight regain isn’t a tradeoff I’m willing to make. I’m keeping my dose at 6. What you both laid out is logical, and I don’t believe I’ve held this weight for a long enough stretch to attempt ANY of that at this point.
Click to expand...

TLDR:

If you're sharp enough to step on the scale regularly, stay aware of your hunger and what you're eating, and don't let panic take over, then tapering the dose is really nothing dramatic. Those who went all the way to 0mg didn't suddenly blow up overnight, and they didn't need some kind of Chinese muzzle handy.

"Ravenous hunger" sounds terrifying, but in practice it's not a huge deal and not worth freaking out over or turning into a soap opera.

Picture your maintenance sitting at roughly 1800 calories. You take too little of your dose and suddenly feel "ravenously hungry." Now imagine that in some wild fit of calorie-destroying fury you put away 5000 calories on day 1, wake up, and do the exact same thing on day 2. By day 3 you remember you're a functioning adult with at least a little self-awareness and some tools to keep hunger from running the show. So you take the rest of your usual dose that you'd skipped... but of course it takes a day to peak, and you eat 4000 calories because you just can't stop yourself. On day 4 you wake up so stuffed you feel sick, and your Chinese food muzzle is fully back in action.

Bottom line, worst case you put on 2.5lb of fat that takes a few weeks for the muzzle to sort out. Water weight variations would almost certainly push the peak gain number higher.

Sure, I haven't actually done it yet, but that constant ravenous hunger doesn't happen unless you let it. Packing on 2.5lb of fat in 3 days takes massive deliberate effort and freakish metabolic efficiency. Dramatic fear-mongering gets under my skin; that's a general gripe more than about this thread, but "ravenous hunger" and "substantial weight gain" clearly hit a nerve.

From the trial data's rough averages, where about 2/3 of participants were on 15mg/week of Tirz and 1/3 on 10mg, and then went to 0mg:

The typical gain over a year was .6lb/week. The biggest increase came in the first couple of months, topping out around .8-1lb/week.
Click to expand...
I have to apologize, "Chinese food muzzle" has officially become my new top phrase 🤣
Click to expand...

Yeah, the phrase "Chinese food muzzle" is quite amusing, though it does ring true.
 
Back
Top