Dr.ObesityLA 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

NurseKim_ATL said:

The "tirzepatide is simply better" summary irritates me.

Coming at NurseKim_ATL’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Following on from Dr.PeteFamMed — 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?

Closing the loop on my own question.

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.