I keep going back to NCT04184622 like a box score: 2539 people, placebo vs 5/10/15 mg, primary period Week 0-72. The raw data lists arms and enrollment, not outcome numbers. For those further along, what actually mattered to you: appetite noise, labs, waist, energy?
I'm trying to separate trial endpoints from day-to-day stuff, because forum threads jump to before/after photos and skip the boring middle. What would you want unblinded first?
Week 72 is the cleanest frame for me. The 2539 enrollment is what makes it worth reading.
I care less about arm labels and more about whether people could stay on 5 vs 15. Discontinuation data would tell more than scale.
Same, though the energy part seems to show before anything actually moves on the lab sheet. Weird lag.
The arms are placebo, 5, 10, 15 over Week 0-72, but without outcome numbers it's just architecture. I'd want the dropout curve by arm first, then whether appetite noise returned before labs shifted. That boring middle is where most personal logs fall apart.
Before/after photos don't show the month where sleep got bad or waist stalled. If 2539 people were enrolled, the aggregate timeline should be the most useful thing, even if it's less clickable than before/after.
I'd also want to know how many stayed on their assigned arm, because that changes how I read any arm comparison.
Sleep and RHR are underrated. My appetite noise dropped before my waist changed.
Discontinuation by arm is the missing piece for me too. That's the real-world question.
2539 is a big trial. Still no raw outcomes?
That's what bugs me. Enrollment isn't a result.
OP, are you comparing Week 72 trial frame to your own week count? I do that and it messes with my head.
I stopped cmoparing my week count to the trial. Different food, sleep, stress.
The boring middle is exactly why I lurk here. A dropout curve by arm would be more useful to me than another appetite-noise poll.
If someone stalled mid-period and still finished to Week 72, that tells a different story than someone who stopped early. I also like the energy-before-labs point, because my own logs looked like that. Sleep first, then waist, then bloodwork.
The hard part is that none of us can see the unblinded aggregate timeline yet, so we're stitching together anecdotes around 2539 enrolled people and four arms. That's a weird way to read a trial.
Week 9 I ditched daily weigh-ins and used one pair of 34-waist jeans as the scoreboard: couldn't button them at the start, neded a belt by around week 20.
The scale only dropped 19 lbs across that stretch, so the tape told me more than the chart did. Weird part is my sloppiest tracking weeks were my best waist weeks. Anyone else get that mismatch?
Week one I dropped 6 lbs overnight and felt like a genius, then found out it was water and disappointment.
Honestly the arm numbers never told me anything useful. Wheher I walked after dinner did.
Twelve weekends of loging taught me the ambush isn't Sunday, it's Saturday around 7pm at a restaurant table. Weekdays I averaged maybe 1,750 calories; Saturdays ran closer to 2,900, and the food wasn't even the main driver, it was standing around the kitchen with a glass in my hand for two hours before we left.
Moved the big meal to Saturday lunch, kept dinner to soup and a salad, and the weekend gap shrank to roughly 400 calories. The reversal: Friday nights were always fine.
Everyone warns about "the weekend" in general, but mine was one specific two-hour window, and once I could see it in the log it stopped feeling like a willpower problem and started feeling like a scheduling problem.
My belt hit a notch at week 9, then stalled for a month; waist tape moved before scale did.
Sleep tanked during a work deadline and my appetite noise went full stadium; five bad nights undid two good weeks.
Added 20-minute post-dinner walks, no gym; the scale stayed flat but my resting heart rate dropped 7 bpm.
I stopped tracking weight daily and tracked protein per meal plus cooked-at-home dinners instead. Weeks 4 to 20 I lost 19 lbs, then weeks 21-34 only 4 lbs while inches kept dropping—pants went 38 to 34.
The weird part was fasting glucose and triglycerides improving before my weight graph looked impressive. What mattered most was energy at 3 p.m. and not white-knuckling the pantry at 9 p.m.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up