PedsEndoPhilly said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

Agreed on the target, with the caveat that reference weight and current weight are different numbers.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.

PedsEndoPhilly said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

I read this differently from PedsEndoPhilly, on substance rather than tone. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.