Alicia Acosta

Disclaimer: Research peptides only. Educational purposes. Not medical advice. Talk to your doctor. I've always said: research with whatever allows you to stay on plan and keeps you in a deficit. But after experimenting with both extensively, I need to rethink this. My Experience: Tirzepatide → food noise basically gone while still being able to eat Retatrutide + cagri → still thinking about food way too much Even adding cagrilintide to reta hasn't given me the same mental freedom as tirz. And that's making me question whether reta's theoretical advantages are actually worth it for most people. What the Clinical Data Shows: Tirzepatide (SURMOUNT trials): Participants consistently reported serious appetite suppression. Many said they basically stopped thinking about food between meals. Retatrutide (Phase 2 trials): Weight loss was impressive (24% at 48 weeks), but appetite control was hit-or-miss. Some people experienced it, others didn't. The pattern is clear: tirz delivers consistent appetite suppression for almost everyone. Reta is more variable. The Part Everyone Overlooks: Yeah, reta might burn slightly more fat because of glucagon receptor activation. But here's the reality— Most researchers don't have their diet and training dialed in yet. And getting THOSE fundamentals right will do way more for fat loss than reta's glucagon effect ever will. You can replicate reta's fat-burning advantages through: - Increased cardio - Lipo-C injections - L-carnitine supplementation - Fasted training sessions - Consistent resistance training Here's my honest take: If you dial in nutrition, training, and sleep, you'll get comparable results with tirz—without fighting hunger all day. Reta's edge only matters if everything else is already optimized. For most people, it's not. What I'm Seeing: This pattern keeps repeating: researchers switch from tirz to reta, then come back—not because tirz made everything effortless, but because it made staying on plan manageable.

New comment 7d ago