PurityPaulOR said:

Steady state is faster than people expect: half-life about five days, so you are at plateau in roughly three to four weeks rather than five.

Pushing back on PurityPaulOR here. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

NurseKim_ATL said:

The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.

Coming at NurseKim_ATL’s question from a different direction. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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.