Short answer first, then the reasoning. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".

Dr.KarenChen said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

ricardo_MIA said:

Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.

Agreed, though "tolerable" needs defining. A dose you tolerate by eating almost nothing is not tolerated, it is being paid for somewhere else — usually in lean mass, sometimes in adherence three months later.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

ricardo_MIA said:

...we don't know the long-term effects of cardiovascular risk...

This is a fair point, and I think intellectual honesty requires acknowledging it. GLP-1 agonists in their current form have ~8-10 years of human exposure data. That's not nothing, but it's not 30+ years either.

However: the risk-benefit calculation should also consider the KNOWN long-term effects of untreated obesity — diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, joint destruction, reduced lifespan by 5-10 years.

Uncertainty about GLP-1 long-term safety vs certainty about obesity consequences. The calculus seems clear to me, but reasonable people can disagree.