Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
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.
What I am trying to establish is how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical.
Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
tammy_FL said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Anti-inflammatory mechanisms of GLP-1 agonists and cardiovascular risk: beyond weight loss, GLP-1R activation directly suppresses NF-κB signaling, reduces NLRP3 inflammasome activation, and decreases monocyte/macrophage adhesion to endothelium[1].
Clinical correlates: hsCRP reduction of 30-60% (consistently seen across trials), reduced carotid intima-media thickness, and decreased coronary plaque inflammation on PET imaging.
These anti-inflammatory effects likely contribute to the cardiovascular benefit seen in SELECT — and may explain benefits beyond what weight loss alone would predict.
[1] Hogan AE, et al. Diabetologia. 2014;57(4):781-784.
JennaRN said:Anti-inflammatory mechanisms of GLP-1 agonists and cardiovascular risk: beyond weight loss, GLP-1R activation directly suppresses NF-κB signaling,…
JennaRN said:...cardiovascular risk is just another fad...
I understand the skepticism — we've all seen "miracle" weight loss solutions come and go. But consider what makes GLP-1 agonists different:
- Phase 3 RCTs with thousands of participants (not 20-person pilot studies)
- Published in NEJM, JAMA, Lancet (not press releases)
- Replicated across multiple independent research groups
- Proven cardiovascular and renal benefits beyond weight loss
- Biological mechanism fully characterized at the receptor level
This isn't a fad — it's a new drug class supported by the highest level of clinical evidence. The comparison to past fads is understandable but inappropriate.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultstammy_FL said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.
tammy_FL said:...we're creating a generation dependent on cardiovascular risk...
I understand the concern, but consider this analogy: are we "creating a generation dependent on" blood pressure medication? Cholesterol medication? Thyroid medication?
Obesity is a chronic disease with biological drivers. Treating it with medication is no different from treating any other chronic condition. The "dependency" framing implies weakness or moral failure — neither of which is accurate.
If ongoing medication is what keeps someone healthy, that's successful treatment, not dependency.