VendorMark said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

andrew_nyc said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

andrew_nyc said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

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

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.