tampaLisa73 said:

The line between titrate-through and stop is not severity, it is trajectory and what else is present.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. 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.

tampaLisa73 said:

The line between titrate-through and stop is not severity, it is trajectory and what else is present.

I dislike how confidently this board tells people to push through. Incidence figures around 20 to 25% at the higher doses are class-typical, but the trials also had a discontinuation column, and "manageable with protocols" is not the same as manageable for everyone.

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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.

NeuroNate 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 the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg. It is still the best direct evidence available, but it is not the comparison most people think they are citing.