My reason for being on this is cardiovascular rather than cosmetic, which puts me in a small minority in most of these threads.
The question I want answered is how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical.
I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.
sophie_paris said:My reason for being on this is cardiovascular rather than cosmetic, which puts me in a small minority in most of these threads.
Mendelian randomization evidence supporting GLP-1 pathway modulation for cardiovascular risk: genetic variants in the GLP1R gene region associated with lower BMI also show associations with reduced cardiovascular risk, confirming a causal pathway[1].
This "natural experiment" (people born with genetically higher GLP-1 signaling being leaner and healthier) provides orthogonal evidence supporting the pharmacological approach. When genetic epidemiology, clinical trials, and mechanistic studies all converge, confidence in the therapeutic approach is high.
[1] Zheng SL, et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023;11(12):869-879.
Dr.RenalNash said:Mendelian randomization evidence supporting GLP-1 pathway modulation for cardiovascular risk: genetic variants in the GLP1R gene region associated…
I want to bring up the cardiovascular angle on cardiovascular risk.
The SELECT trial demonstrated a 20% reduction in MACE with semaglutide 2.4mg[1]. This is practice-changing because the CV benefit appears to be independent of the degree of weight loss — suggesting direct vascular and anti-inflammatory mechanisms.
For cardiovascular risk, this means we need to think beyond the primary outcome and consider the cardiovascular implications. The all-cause mortality reduction (HR 0.81) is the most clinically meaningful signal.
[1] Lincoff AM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2221-2232.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultssophie_paris said:My reason for being on this is cardiovascular rather than cosmetic, which puts me in a small minority in most of these threads.
Mine went the same way, slower.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly.
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.