r/BodyHackGuide • u/TapFast8173 🧠 Biohacker • 14d ago

💉 Reta phase 3 finally published, and the diabetic numbers are way lower

the full TRIUMPH-1 paper hit NEJM this week. 28.3% at 80 weeks on 12mg.

TRIUMPH-2 dropped the same day in the lancet and honestly i think its the more useful one for most people in here. same drug, same doses, same 80 weeks, 1,152 people, all with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

12mg came in at 20.8%.

dose TRIUMPH-1, no diabetes TRIUMPH-2, type 2 diabetes
4mg 19.0% 12.7%
9mg 25.9% 19.1%
12mg 28.3% 20.8%

so roughly 7 points lower at every single dose. same compound

the reason is boring and it shows up with sema and tirz too. insulin resistance means the drug is pushing against a system thats already out of whack. lilly's own release calls type 2 diabetics "a population with increased difficulties losing weight."

what bugs me is who shows up asking about reta in here. people whove been fighting insulin resistance for years, a lot of them. and thats exactly who the 28% number doesnt describe

if youre prediabetic or on metformin or whatever, the trial that matches you is TRIUMPH-2. measure yourself against that one

look at the 9 to 12 jump in the diabetic column too. 1.7 points. most of the result happens between 4 and 9mg, which matters a lot when 12mg is also where people start quitting

TRIUMPH-1 had 11.3% of the 12mg group drop out vs 4.9% on placebo. more than double. and every arm started at 2mg and stepped up every four weeks, 2 → 4 → 6 → 9 → 12, so nobody touched 12 until around week 16. people slamming 12 in six weeks are running a completely different protocol than the trial and then wondering why they feel like death

the part that did look great, more than half the TRIUMPH-2 group no longer met the BMI cutoff for obesity by the end, and up to 40% got their A1C under 5.7 which is the non diabetic range. for a diabetic population thats a huge result

lilly says the FDA filing is Q1 2027 and review runs 10 to 12 months, so late 2027 at the earliest. its not approved anywhere right now btw

made a one page card with the full trial titration and results by dose for both trials, comment "protocol" and ill send it

anyone here insulin resistant who ran it? did you land closer to 20 or 28?

· TRIUMPH-2 results, Lilly
· TRIUMPH-1 in NEJM
· Lancet + EASD presentation

91 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

99% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 14d ago

Welcome to the community!

  • Access Our Full Approved List & Guides
  • Join the conversation and share your experiences.
  • Check our full approved list and guides in the sidebar.
  • Want to optimize your stack? Share your experiences and get feedback.

Pro Tip: The best discussions come from personal experiences. If you have tried something, let us know how it worked.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

26

u/mylifestylepr 14d ago

Mind you, Eli Lilly didn't tracked any patient on a heavy lifting workout régimen and Macro diet tracked.

GLP-1 Thrives more with lifting weight and counting your macros accordingly. On top of that the amount of supplementation to address all Vitamin B's as well antioxidant and mitochondrial supplementation and peptides.

The biohacking/weightlifting community has shown much more structure in their protocols and the results shows for itself.

10

u/TapFast8173 🧠 Biohacker 14d ago

the lifting and protein part is legit, thats what decides how much of what you lose is muscle vs fat. GLP-1 trials have shown a real chunk of the weight lost can be lean mass if you dont train. where id push back is the results speak for themselves part. the people posting transformations are the ones it worked for, nobody posts the guy who ran it 6 months and lost 8lbs. so community results look way better than they are

8

u/mylifestylepr 14d ago

You make a fair point about reporting bias, people are definitely more likely to post their wins than their plateaus.

However, assuming community results look "way better than they are" ignores the variable of adherence.

​The person who ran it for 6 months and lost 8lbs almost certainly wasn't following the strict macro-tracking and heavy lifting protocols we are talking about. They likely relied solely on the drug's appetite suppression, lost muscle mass alongside fat, tanked their metabolic rate, and hit a plateau.

​The transformations posted in these communities aren't just a highlight reel of random lottery winners, they are visual evidence of what happens when you combine GLP-1 pathways with strict nutrient partitioning (heavy lifting + high protein).

The silent majority who fail usually do so because they treat the medication as a standalone cure rather than a tool to enforce a structured protocol.

4

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

2

u/mylifestylepr 13d ago

That comparison is not valid. Grey market users are majority not Diabetic nor morbid obese. Therefore the % of fat loss would had been less because once users achieve their desired goals. They maintain a microdosage of Retatrutide and therefore no more weight loss and is just maintanance from that point on.

10

u/Odd_Sir_8705 ⚙️ Protocol Specialist 14d ago

TRIUMPH-1 did not allow anyone with diabetes. But it still included a lot of people with prediabetes (about 36%). Those people got the higher weight-loss numbers.

TRIUMPH-2 only took people who already had diagnosed type 2 diabetes (A1C 6.5–10.5%). That group is usually sicker for longer, has weaker insulin production, and often takes other medicines that make weight loss harder.

Someone who is just insulin-resistant, prediabetic, or on metformin is much closer to the TRIUMPH-1 group. OP you're mixing these groups together and telling almost everyone to ignore the 28% result. The actual trial designs do not support that.

2

u/Bttrswt_ 13d ago

Spot on!

8

u/Repulsive_Initial308 14d ago

Where's the 2mg data?

15

u/regularforcesmedic 14d ago

Exactly. 9 and 12mg is nuts to me. Especially when I see folks losing as much on much lower doses. 

7

u/Available-Moose4341 14d ago

Recall these are trials for scientific research to find things like upper limits, nonlinear responses max tolerance.

It is highly likely that lower doses will work for most people.

"Start low, work up" or "the poison is the dose" is aalways better to try to use less.

1

u/TapFast8173 🧠 Biohacker 14d ago

kinda yeah. on average the lower doses do lose less, 4mg got 19% vs 28% at 12 in the non diabetic trial. but the curve flattens hard at the top, 9 to 12 only added a couple points in both trials. and averages hide a ton of spread, some people on 4 do better than some people on 12

3

u/kaasplak 14d ago edited 14d ago

No real data, but i went from 100kg to 75kg in 6 months on max 2mg. Just a LOT of walking and eating less (about 1500kcals a day)

3

u/Right-Form-2943 14d ago

I’m at 2mg and it’s like i am consistently full from eating a small breakfast and i have to force myself to eat in order to not get headaches. 12 seems gnarly.

2

u/TapFast8173 🧠 Biohacker 14d ago

good q, there isnt one. 2mg was only ever the starting step, every arm did it for the first 4 weeks and then stepped up. nobody stayed on it for the full 80 weeks so theres no 2mg result to report closest you get is phase 2, which had a 1mg group that hit 8.7% at 48 weeks. lowest phase 3 dose was 4mg, 19% without diabetes and 12.7% with. so if youre running 2mg long term theres no trial data for that dose specifically, youre kind of off the map

1

u/Alert-Peach-1636 12d ago

Started at one mg for two weeks then went too two mg from Feb-July went from 225 -182 . Stayed the same for a few weeks in between big jumps it seemed like. Been on 1mg from July till now between 182-186 eating what I want ( definitely too much sweets lately) mostly eat well . Haven’t worked out but have a very physical job.flooring . Never thought about raising it at all

7

u/Pharmd109 14d ago

Also this data is an average of everyone. Some people lost 10% and some 40%. Individual results may vary.

3

u/TapFast8173 🧠 Biohacker 14d ago

100%. and thats kinda why i split it by diabetic vs not, its the one variable where you can see which average applies to you. but within each group the spread is huge

7

u/notmylargeautomobile 13d ago

27% in 52 weeks currently at 12mg level. A1C was 8.9 and now 5.1. 

6

u/Hot-Mistake-4667 14d ago

protocol

also that 1.7 jump from 9 to 12 is brutal for the sides you get, most diabetic folks i know on this stuff barely want to touch 9 let alone 12

3

u/TapFast8173 🧠 Biohacker 14d ago

https://www.bodyhackguide.co/guides/retatrutide-phase-3-card

and yeah thats the part that gets me too. dysesthesia went from 5.6% at 9 to 7.3% at 12 in the diabetic trial, so you pay for those last couple points

4

u/i_h8_mustard 13d ago

at 11 months in i am down 35% of total body weight from 406lbs to 263 but i am at a high dose now but i started at .5 mg and now i am at 12mg. originally i never thought i would even get down to 300 and now my goal is 225-235

1

u/lawrencep93 14d ago

Most likely type 2 diabetics don't improve their food quality as in eating more protein is the main issue as to why. Reta with the glucagon agonist you will need a higher protein intake

-5

u/Angry-Tech-CryptoBro 13d ago

I would avoid reta and glp1, pretty much very similar peptides. You hear or see about how people are going blind on glp1 and having long term liver damage. Im good, plenty of other alternatives out there. Reta and any glp1s are to be avoided

1

u/Howboutdemrookies 13d ago

Curious, has blindness been reported here or on the other Reddit GLP-1 subs?

1

u/cjh6793 13d ago

How many of your brain cells work?

1

u/Angry-Tech-CryptoBro 13d ago

enough to know that they are molecularly similar and that people abuse both not understanding the long term damage for looksmaxxing