This is the right question and honestly, we don't have a definitive answer yet. But I can add some data points:

The Phase 2 retatrutide trial included indirect calorimetry measurements in a subset of participants. The data hasn't been fully published yet, but Lilly presented preliminary findings at a conference showing that REE (adjusted for body weight) was maintained or slightly increased in retatrutide-treated participants compared to a decrease in the placebo group.

This is significant because weight loss normally REDUCES REE (metabolic adaptation). The fact that retatrutide may prevent this reduction — even if it's not dramatically increasing absolute REE — could be functionally equivalent to a thermogenic effect in terms of total energy balance.

In other words, the GCG component may not be "burning extra calories" so much as preventing the metabolic slowdown that normally accompanies weight loss. That's still very valuable because metabolic adaptation is one of the key drivers of weight loss plateaus and regain.

Let me model this quantitatively. For a person losing 20% body weight (e.g., 100 kg → 80 kg):

Without thermogenic support (semaglutide-like):

• Baseline REE: ~2,000 kcal/day
• Expected REE at 80 kg (weight alone): ~1,700 kcal/day
• Metabolic adaptation penalty: -150 to -200 kcal/day
• Actual REE: ~1,500-1,550 kcal/day

With GCG-mediated thermogenesis (retatrutide-like):

• Baseline REE: ~2,000 kcal/day
• Expected REE at 80 kg: ~1,700 kcal/day
• Metabolic adaptation penalty: partially offset by GCG thermogenesis
• Actual REE: ~1,650-1,700 kcal/day (close to predicted)

The net difference is 100-200 kcal/day, which over 48 weeks translates to roughly 3-5 kg additional fat loss. That's meaningful but not enormous. It partially explains the ~2-4 percentage point efficacy advantage of retatrutide over tirzepatide, but doesn't fully account for it.

The remaining efficacy gap may come from GCG's direct effects on hepatic lipid metabolism, additional satiety signaling, and potentially gut-level effects we don't fully understand yet.

This is the kind of deep science discussion I come to this forum for. Thank you all.

One thing I'm curious about: if GCG agonism activates BAT, is the effect dependent on how much BAT a person has? I've read that BAT decreases with age and increases with cold exposure. Would younger patients or those living in cold climates see a bigger thermogenic benefit from retatrutide?

Interesting hypothesis. You're right that BAT volume varies significantly across individuals:

• Young adults: ~50-80g BAT
• Older adults: ~10-30g BAT (often undetectable on PET-CT)
• People with obesity: generally LESS BAT than lean individuals
• Chronic cold exposure: can increase BAT mass and activity

If the GCG thermogenic effect is primarily BAT-mediated, then yes, there could be significant inter-individual variability based on BAT volume. However, there's growing evidence that glucagon also promotes thermogenesis through BAT-independent pathways, particularly hepatic futile cycling and increased skeletal muscle energy dissipation.

This is actually an area where individual metabolic phenotyping (using PET-CT for BAT, indirect calorimetry for REE) could help predict who would benefit most from the GCG component. Precision obesity medicine is still in its infancy, but this is the kind of question that will drive it forward.