Dr.MetabolicMD said:The GIP arm is doing real work rather than padding the label.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
Worth separating that from training through weight loss, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
PeptideChemSF said:The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Training does two things here and only one of them is on the scale. It protects lean mass — which is the reason to do it — and it contributes modestly to the deficit, which is the reason people start and then quit when the arithmetic disappoints them. In a deep deficit, resistance work is the priority and high-volume cardio competes with recovery.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after robert_kc’s answer:
Whether anyone has held 10mg long term rather than climbing, and what happened over the following year?
Closing the loop on my own question.
I stayed at 10mg. Another six months, another 7kg, no new side effects, and my reading of the dose-response says the last two steps were never going to be worth what they cost me.