The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
What changes if the standard account of c-cell question is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Research-use-only semaglutide is not a licensed medicine, is not manufactured to pharmaceutical standards, and is not approved for human use. That is a statement about what it is, not a coded opinion about anything.
Post #16 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The 2.4 mg maintenance dose in the weight-management programme and the 1.0 mg diabetes dose are frequently discussed as though they were the same drug at different strengths. They are, but the trials behind them enrolled different populations for different endpoints, so the evidence does not transfer sideways.
The claim about c-cell question upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
I had written a reply contradicting post #23 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Appetite effects and gastrointestinal effects are frequently reported together and are not the same mechanism reported twice. Slowed gastric emptying contributes to both, but central satiety signalling accounts for effects that persist after emptying has normalised.
Distinguishing three things in the c-cell question discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Post #38 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Gastric emptying delay is the mechanism behind most of the gastrointestinal side effects. Slowing the stomach empties it feeds less food into the intestines at a time, which is part of the satiety mechanism but is also why nausea is dose-dependent and titration-dependent.
Worth separating two things that post #50 runs together.
Offering a way to settle c-cell question rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Read the full topic (66 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold?
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Practical question…
|
+58 | 62 | 49k | 20mo |
|
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version
On the subject in the title: Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Comparing the STEP programme…
|
4 | 7.7k | 11mo | |
|
Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to know what people here actually do about semaglutide…
|
+14 | 18 | 10k | 2d |
|
Second pass at: Why semaglutide's albumin binding is the whole reason weekly dosing works
Second pass at: Why semaglutide's albumin binding is the whole reason weekly dosing works Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Putting the numbers in the first…
|
2 | 39k | 6mo | |
|
Is there a ceiling dose beyond which semaglutide stops adding benefit?
Is there a ceiling dose beyond which semaglutide stops adding benefit? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Putting the numbers in the first post, because…
|
2 | 14k | 2mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet
On the subject in the title: The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet Working notes rather than a conclusion. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a compound…
|
2 | 49k | 2y | |
|
GIP receptor agonism and the argument about direction
GIP receptor agonism and the argument about direction — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A question about GIP receptor agonism that I think has a definite answer, unlike…
|
2 | 867 | 10mo | |
|
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a series rather than a conclusion, with the method first.…
|
+109 | 125 | 42k | 10h |
|
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. I have read the maintained page…
|
+138 | 148 | 1.8k | 2y |
|
Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly
Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin tirzepatide in type 2…
|
+150 | 163 | 22k | 11mo |