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.
Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
MikeFit_NJ said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
MikeFit_NJ 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.
mike.trainer_LA said:MikeFit_NJ said: ...cardiovascular risk is just another fad...
Vitamin deficiency cascade with cardiovascular risk: after 6+ months of reduced food intake, I developed a subtle but important pattern: low B12 → elevated homocysteine → increased cardiovascular risk marker.
The connection: B12 is a cofactor for homocysteine metabolism. Without adequate B12, homocysteine accumulates. This is ironic — taking a CV-protective medication while developing a CV risk factor from reduced nutrition.
Solution: comprehensive vitamin supplementation and regular lab monitoring. Don't let the medication's benefits be undermined by nutritional deficiencies.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemMikeFit_NJ said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Mine went the same way, slower. Posting only so the count is not one.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.
Cardiac biomarkers and cardiovascular risk: my cardiologist ordered advanced cardiac labs given my family history. Results were encouraging:
- NT-proBNP: 72 pg/mL (normal, cardiac function preserved)
- Lp(a): 52 nmol/L (genetic, unchanged — expected)
- ApoB: dropped from 157 to 97 mg/dL (excellent response)
- Coronary calcium score: 0 (unchanged from baseline — reassuring)
The ApoB reduction is particularly meaningful — it's considered the best single predictor of cardiovascular risk. GLP-1 therapy seems to improve this consistently.