One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
Following on from TinaHashiRN — and this may be the naive question:
Whether anyone has held 10mg long term rather than climbing, and what happened over the following year?
PeptideChemSF said: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…
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, without diabetes. The effect appeared earlier than the weight-loss curve can comfortably explain, which is the basis for arguing that some of the benefit is direct — anti-inflammatory and vascular — rather than purely a consequence of weight.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update: the eight-week restart pattern people described is exactly what happened. I nearly abandoned it at week five.
LindaRN_retired said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg. It is still the best direct evidence available, but it is not the comparison most people think they are citing.