Dr.NutriCornell said:BiostatsBrad said: ...but the FDA says semaglutide...
Agreed, with the qualification that SELECT enrolled a secondary-prevention population. Extrapolating a 20% relative reduction to a healthy 35-year-old with a BMI of 31 is not what that trial showed.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.AddMedPHL said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The "earlier than weight loss explains" argument is weaker than this thread makes it sound. Blood pressure and inflammatory markers move fast and are downstream of early weight loss, so the mechanism is not as cleanly separable as the summaries imply.