HealthEcon_DC said:

Positive "side effect" of cardiovascular risk: my blood pressure dropped so much that I'm now off amlodipine entirely!

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.

HealthEcon_DC said:

Positive "side effect" of cardiovascular risk: my blood pressure dropped so much that I'm now off amlodipine entirely!

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".

HealthEcon_DC said:

Positive "side effect" of cardiovascular risk: my blood pressure dropped so much that I'm now off amlodipine entirely!

Cardiac biomarkers and cardiovascular risk: my cardiologist ordered advanced cardiac labs given my family history. Results were encouraging:

• NT-proBNP: 61 pg/mL (normal, cardiac function preserved)
• Lp(a): 51 nmol/L (genetic, unchanged — expected)
• ApoB: dropped from 151 to 86 mg/dL (excellent response)
• Coronary calcium score: 0 (unchanged from baseline — reassuring)

The ApoB reduction is particularly meaningful — it's considered the best single predictor of cardiovascular risk. GLP-1 therapy seems to improve this consistently.

Following on from HealthEcon_DC — and this may be the naive question:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

Dr.GutHealth said:

Cardiac biomarkers and cardiovascular risk: my cardiologist ordered advanced cardiac labs given my family history.

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.