Dr.AddMedPHL said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Taking it to my next appointment.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
NurseAsh_DET said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsNurseAsh_DET said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, without diabetes. The effect appeared earlier than the weight-loss curve can comfortably explain, which is the basis for arguing that some of the benefit is direct — anti-inflammatory and vascular — rather than purely a consequence of weight.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Worth separating that from cardiovascular outcomes, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.