This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. The practical protocol is dull and it works: smaller meals, stop eating at the first sign of fullness rather than at the end of the plate, drop the fat fraction of meals in the two days after dosing, and do not lie down straight after eating. Most of what people call unmanageable nausea is a meal-size and meal-composition problem interacting with a stomach that is emptying slowly.

COA_Karl said:

The practical protocol is dull and it works: smaller meals, stop eating at the first sign of fullness rather than at the end of the plate, drop the…

Agreed on adaptation, with a caveat: adaptation applies to gastric emptying and not to everything. If your problem is the aversion rather than the fullness, waiting does less, because the aversion is central and it is the mechanism working as intended.

pete_RVA said:

The nausea I get is not really nausea, it is an aversion.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. Holding genuinely reduces total burden rather than redistributing it, because the gastric-emptying component adapts. Receptor-level tachyphylaxis to the delayed-emptying effect develops over weeks while the central appetite effect persists, so the same dose is materially more comfortable at week six than at week two. A slower ladder therefore reaches the same dose with less cumulative nausea, not the same nausea spread thinner.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.