Short answer first, then the reasoning. The mechanism is more central than most summaries suggest. Receptor agonism in the arcuate nucleus activates POMC neurons and inhibits AgRP/NPY signalling, and the downstream MC4R pathway is the same one disrupted in monogenic obesity — convergent genetic evidence that the target is the right one. Peripherally there is glucose-dependent insulin secretion, glucagon suppression and delayed gastric emptying, but the gastric component largely adapts over months while the central effect persists, which is why the durable effect is appetite rather than fullness.

Dr.RenalNash said:

The mechanism is more central than most summaries suggest.

Agreed, and the adaptation point cuts both ways: tachyphylaxis to gastric emptying is why tolerability improves, and it is also why people who were relying on physical fullness feel the effect fade while the appetite effect is still working.

AmyNC_wife said:

Watching the glucagon co-agonists for the liver endpoints and finding almost nothing written about them that is not a press release.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

Glucagon receptor pharmacology in triple agonists (retatrutide), relevant to the glucagon co-agonists: the glucagon component is the most controversial because glucagon traditionally raises blood glucose. So why include it in an anti-obesity drug?

Key insight: glucagon increases energy expenditure (thermogenesis), promotes hepatic lipid oxidation, and reduces appetite through distinct CNS mechanisms. The hyperglycemic effect is counterbalanced by the GLP-1 component's insulin secretagogue action.

Net result: more weight loss through increased expenditure (glucagon) + decreased intake (GLP-1/GIP), with neutral or improved glycemia. An elegant pharmacological balancing act[1].