Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. Summarising the TRIUMPH thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What TRIUMPH is designed to answer, and why we should not pre-empt it — does this still hold?
An honest uncertainty about TRIUMPH rather than a disguised assertion.
I do not know the answer and I have not been able to find one. What I have is the shape of the question, which may be worth more than my guess at the answer.
One more thing on TRIUMPH that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.
Summarising the TRIUMPH thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.
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.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
On TRIUMPH I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Building on post #6 rather than restating it.
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.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed TRIUMPH, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
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.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Coming back to post #11, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Dose-response in the phase 2 obesity work was clear across the studied range, with no obvious plateau within it. Extrapolating beyond the highest studied dose from that is exactly the reasoning trials are designed to prevent.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
The failure mode on TRIUMPH is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.
Post #15 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
Adding the measurement that post #19 says would settle it.
Whether triple agonism is additive or synergistic is an open question and the published work does not answer it. A phase 2 trial without a dual-agonist comparator arm cannot distinguish the two.
The useful distinction on TRIUMPH is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
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.
What would change my mind on TRIUMPH is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
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.
I read post #22 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Two claims get bundled together under TRIUMPH and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Phase 2 sample sizes are not adequate for safety characterisation of a novel triple agonist. Phase 3 is where that question gets answered. Using phase 2 results to make claims about safety profile is using the trial for a purpose it was not designed for.
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.
Post #28 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I keep a log for TRIUMPH specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
Coming back to post #26, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Two things can be true about TRIUMPH at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.