PeptideChemSF said:SURMOUNT-1 landed around 20.9% mean weight loss at 15mg over 72 weeks, against roughly 15% for semaglutide 2.4mg in STEP 1.
I read this differently from PeptideChemSF, on substance rather than tone. The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me. It is better on mean weight loss, and the cardiovascular outcome evidence is far thinner than semaglutide's. If the reason for treating is cardiovascular risk rather than weight, the evidence base points the other way.
One concrete data point for the thread. Numbers worth memorising for this class: Tmax one to three days for the weekly peptides, terminal half-life about a week for semaglutide and about five days for tirzepatide, steady state at four to five half-lives, subcutaneous bioavailability high enough that site choice is irrelevant.
BethLabQueen said:The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The pharmacokinetics explain nearly every practical question asked here. Albumin binding above 99% slows clearance enough to make weekly dosing possible; a terminal half-life near a week means four to five weeks to steady state and therefore a four-week titration interval; subcutaneous bioavailability around 89% means injection site barely matters. Those three facts answer most timing questions before they are asked.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from AmyNC_wife — and this may be the naive question:
How much of the tirzepatide advantage is the GIP component and how much is simply that the dose ladder goes higher in receptor-occupancy terms?
Reporting back.
Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose. Still losing slowly, no new side effects, and no reason I can find to climb further.