Source comparison
Tesofensine + MOTS-c vs Single-Agent Protocols: Outcome Comparison
Tesofensine alone (0.5mg/day) Central monoamine reuptake inhibition 8.2% body weight Significant (70–80% report reduced hunger) Minimal direct effect Moderate risk during aggressive deficit Effective for appetite control but limited peripheral metabolic impact
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- Tesofensine alone (0.5mg/day)
- Central monoamine reuptake inhibition
- 8.2% body weight
- Significant (70–80% report reduced hunger)
- Minimal direct effect
- Moderate risk during aggressive deficit
- Effective for appetite control but limited peripheral metabolic impact. Fat loss plateaus without dietary structure
- MOTS-c alone (10mg 3×/week)
- Mitochondrial AMPK activation
- 4.7% body weight
- None (no CNS appetite signaling)
- +28% (via GLUT4 translocation)
- High. Preferentially spares lean mass
- Strong metabolic benefits but insufficient caloric deficit induction without appetite management. Best for insulin resistance
- Tesofensine + MOTS-c (synergistic dosing)
- Dual-pathway: CNS appetite + peripheral lipolysis
- 14.3% body weight
- Significant (tesofensine-mediated)
- +31% (MOTS-c-driven with sustained norepinephrine support)
- High. MOTS-c prevents muscle catabolism during tesofensine thermogenesis
- Produces greatest cumulative fat loss by addressing both energy intake (appetite) and expenditure (fat oxidation). Recommended protocol for comprehensive body recomposition
- Diet + exercise only
- Caloric restriction + activity-induced energy deficit
- 3.1% body weight
- Moderate (willpower-dependent)
- Variable (often worsens with severe restriction)
- Low. Significant lean mass loss common
- Metabolic adaptation and hormonal compensation (elevated ghrelin, suppressed leptin) limit long-term efficacy without pharmacological support