Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.
Training does two things here and only one of them is on the scale. It protects lean mass — which is the reason to do it — and it contributes modestly to the deficit, which is the reason people start and then quit when the arithmetic disappoints them. In a deep deficit, resistance work is the priority and high-volume cardio competes with recovery.
Where I think it is weakest: the follow-up is short relative to how long people actually take these drugs, so durability is an assumption here rather than a finding.
The question I want answered is what training is actually for during a large deficit, because framing it as calorie burn sets people up to quit when the arithmetic disappoints them. Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.