Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Relative versus absolute is the distinction that gets lost: a 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit, and the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one.
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical.
Tell me what I have not thought of.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak. People who dose late are not losing a peak, they are letting the trough fall, and the appetite effect tracks the trough.
Dr.RenalNash said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemKetoKyle said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Agreed, though "tolerable" needs defining. A dose you tolerate by eating almost nothing is not tolerated, it is being paid for somewhere else — usually in lean mass, sometimes in adherence three months later.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly.
Vitamin deficiency cascade with cardiovascular risk: after 6+ months of reduced food intake, I developed a subtle but important pattern: low B12 → elevated homocysteine → increased cardiovascular risk marker.
The connection: B12 is a cofactor for homocysteine metabolism. Without adequate B12, homocysteine accumulates. This is ironic — taking a CV-protective medication while developing a CV risk factor from reduced nutrition.
Solution: comprehensive vitamin supplementation and regular lab monitoring. Don't let the medication's benefits be undermined by nutritional deficiencies.