Writing this once so I can stop repeating it across threads. It is about cardiovascular outcomes, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

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.

The condition it depends on

The qualification that SELECT enrolled a secondary-prevention population. Extrapolating a 20% relative reduction to a healthy 35-year-old with a BMI of 31 is not what that trial showed.

The practical version

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 not sure about

What would genuinely help is knowing how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.