Noticed a difference between Tirz and Mounjaro

bigtyivier2k2

New Member
10+ Year Member
For a year I was using Elli Lily’s mounjaro building up to 15mg shots for the last 2 months. It got too expensive so I switched to Stan’s Tirzepatide also doing 15mg shots but the difference is noticeable

Mounjaro: lasts me 5-6 days of extreme appetite suppression where I dont think of food at all and after eating a small meal have zero desire to eat again

Tirz: lasts me 3 days max of appetite suppression but I still think about food and can eat more later in the day
 
That's not correct. Consider this. If there was no fillers in the pens or vials, then how could one .5 ml vial contain 2.5mg. of Tirz and another .5 ml vial contain 15 mg. of Tirz? Answer: there are obvious fillers and likely preservatives.

There are no fillers.

There's:

- Tirzepatide

- Sodium chloride (to make the solution match the salinity of blood for a non-irritating injection)

- Sodium phosphate (a buffer that maintains PH 6.5-7.5, also for a comfortable injection, and to keep the Tirz stable)

- Water for injection

- Sometimes a minuscule amount of acid or base to fine tune the water's PH.

And that's it. It's produced aseptically. sterile from beginning to end, then the finished pens and vials are irradiated to ensure they're sterile.

No preservative whatsoever.

All Tirz doses, pens or vials, are diluted to a volume of .5ml.

The vials are single dose, single use.

IMG_9300.webp
 
There are no fillers.

There's:

- Tirzepatide

- Sodium chloride (to make the solution match the salinity of blood for a non-irritating injection)

- Sodium phosphate (a buffer that maintains PH 6.5-7.5, also for a comfortable injection, and to keep the Tirz stable)

- Water for injection

- Sometimes a minuscule amount of acid or base to fine tune the water's PH.

And that's it. It's produced aseptically. sterile from beginning to end, then the finished pens and vials are irradiated to ensure they're sterile.

No preservative whatsoever.

All Tirz doses, pens or vials, are diluted to a volume of .5ml.

The vials are single dose, single use.

View attachment 333540
ah, so the water is the only diluting agent, correct?
 
ah, so the water is the only diluting agent, correct?

Exactly. The amount of water is the same regardless of dose.

This is done to control the speed the drug is absorbed (pharmacokinetics), which helps reduce severity of sides, and lowers the risk of hypoglycemia from blood levels of tirz rising too suddenly.

For Wegovy (sema), the two largest doses, 1.4mg and 2.4mg, increase the water from .50ml to .75ml, solely to slow absorption of the larger doses, not because those minuscule amounts require more to dissolve properly.

Modern growth hormone formulations are developed to absorb at a slower rate, either through higher dilution. or ingredients like polysorbate that slow absorption, to avoid a spike the spike in GH levels that are associated with growth hormone sides like water retention causing swelling and pain.

Most people seem to think diluting should be whatever's convenient, when there are good reasons to follow pharma's lead. Besides pharmacokinetics, a solution that's too concentrated speeds up degradation of the peptide.
 
@Ghoul with the increasing availability of high concentration UGL sema, can you think of any reason why greater peptide dilution would not be desirable?

For example, I have a 30mg vial here. I'm considering taking a few mL out of a 10mL bac water vial and using it to transfer the 30mg of sema into the bac water vial.

I'd end up with a concentration of 3mg/mL, which would make it easy to dose with sufficient precision.

It's also a lot of sema; it would take 12 weeks for me to use the entire 30mg if I were to use the maximum recommended dose of 2.4mg/week. Realistically, it will take longer, since I'm not going to be at that dose for some time.

Since it's going to sit, reconstituted, for three months, it seems like added stability through dilution would be a plus.

I found a couple of papers that support the idea that decreased peptide concentration improves stability.


I believe you're already aware of at least the first one.

Any reason you can think of not to go this route?
 
@Ghoul with the increasing availability of high concentration UGL sema, can you think of any reason why greater peptide dilution would not be desirable?

For example, I have a 30mg vial here. I'm considering taking a few mL out of a 10mL bac water vial and using it to transfer the 30mg of sema into the bac water vial.

I'd end up with a concentration of 3mg/mL, which would make it easy to dose with sufficient precision.

It's also a lot of sema; it would take 12 weeks for me to use the entire 30mg if I were to use the maximum recommended dose of 2.4mg/week. Realistically, it will take longer, since I'm not going to be at that dose for some time.

Since it's going to sit, reconstituted, for three months, it seems like added stability through dilution would be a plus.

I found a couple of papers that support the idea that decreased peptide concentration improves stability.


I believe you're already aware of at least the first one.

Any reason you can think of not to go this route?

I don't see any disadvantage. It may slow absorption a little, but that's not a problem, as opposed to speeding it up with a higher concentration.

Just keep subQ volume under 1ml. Above that the depot becomes like a high pressure bubble, and can speed up absorption. Probobly hurts too.
 
I'll keep it under 1ml. At 2.4mg, I would only end up at 0.8ml.

Thanks for the quick reply, and the time you take to include sources in a lot of your posts.

If I don't post a source, and you're curious feel free to ask. I usually only do so if I think it's particularly interesting but I always have them. Despite claims otherwise, I only rely on primary sources when I'm researching something.
 
Back
Top