This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
I read post #60 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
Taking post #62 at face value and following it one step further.
TRIUMPH is phase 3 and it is ongoing. No phase 3 results exist. Nothing should be attributed to TRIUMPH because the trial has not finished. When it does, this page will update.
Retatrutide is investigational. Anything obtained outside a trial is by definition research-use-only material with no human-use authorisation. This site will state that plainly rather than winking at it.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
Building on post #65 rather than restating it.
Retatrutide is investigational. Material obtained outside a clinical trial is research-use-only by definition, is not approved for human use, and carries no assurance about its identity or content beyond whatever independent testing you commission yourself.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
The arithmetic in post #67 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
Answering the question post #69 raises rather than the one it answers.
Why this subcategory is more cautious than elsewhere: retatrutide is investigational, phase 3 is ongoing, and the heart-rate signal in phase 2 is not negligible. Caution is proportionate to the evidence status.
Everything in post #67 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Anyone deciding on the basis of what is published should know that what is published is a phase 2 programme and some pharmacokinetics. That is a genuinely early evidence base and this page will say so until it changes.
That is all I can say without guessing.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
Mass and identity: a report on retatrutide should state the mass detected by LC-MS, not assume a theoretical mass. The theoretical mass is not published in peer-reviewed literature for retatrutide at present.
I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
Building on post #75 rather than restating it.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly: long-term safety, real-world response rates, the dose response in diverse populations, whether the heart-rate signal persists or attenuates, durability of effect on withdrawal, efficacy in comorbidities beyond obesity.
Adding the measurement that post #79 says would settle it.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
Picking up post #80: that is the part I would want checked first.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
On post #78 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
No phase 3 results exist for retatrutide. Anything attributed to a completed phase 3 trial of this compound is either a misreading or an invention, and the honest answer to most questions here is that the data is not in yet.
A theoretical mass for retatrutide is not published in the peer-reviewed literature in a form worth quoting. A report should state the mass observed on the instrument rather than assert agreement with a figure nobody can check.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper
Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about Retatrutide phase 2 in type that I did…
|
+1 | 5 | 31k | 8mo |
|
How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result — what changed since
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result — what changed since Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question…
|
+25 | 35 | 568 | 6mo |
|
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither?
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Posting a small dataset on Triple agonism. It is…
|
+114 | 120 | 1.4k | 10mo |
|
About the Retatrutide category
Triple GIP/GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist. Phase 2 data, TRIUMPH programme, and cautious practical discussion. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
4 | 12k | 2y | |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A methods question rather than a substantive…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a…
|
+15 | 19 | 2.8k | 1d |
|
[2026 update] Correlation in a self-tracked dataset: what it can support
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Correlation in a self-tracked dataset: what it can support Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on Correlation. It is mine, it is…
|
2 | 31k | 6h | |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on
On the subject in the title: Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Criticising…
|
+16 | 20 | 61k | 11mo |
|
Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit
Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I would like to know what people…
|
+60 | 66 | 16k | 1d |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Comparators chosen for…
|
+82 | 87 | 1.1k | 12mo |