u/zaid_roos

That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.

a single DEXA is a number, two is a comparison, three is a trend

fertility can change with weight loss and that surprises people

Push back: PCOS as a diagnosis and insulin resistance as a finding are not interchangeable, and the thread is using them as one.

phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect

Hormonal variation across the cycle affects appetite, fluid retention and subjective symptom intensity independently of anything else, which is why an unannotated log can look mysterious.

Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.

phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

read the endpoint before you read the headline

Not convinced by that DEXA comparison. Different machine, different protocol, and the difference is inside the error.

Yes — hair shedding tracks the rate of loss and it is temporary. That reassurance is worth repeating.

Resistance training, and at what frequency?

Disagreeing with this line: rate alone does not preserve lean mass. The training does.

What was the comparator?

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

training volume matters more than training novelty

Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.

Protein was the whole problem. Appetite dropped and I was eating well under target without noticing for a month.

Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.

Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.

the appetite effect makes eating enough protein a logistics problem

Correcting myself upthread: 23 months between scans, not the figure I gave.

Same DEXA machine both times?

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.

discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote

the same dose can feel different at different points in the month

Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.

What is protein intake actually looking like, measured rather than estimated?

Two scans on the same machine 2 months apart. Lean mass held better than I expected and the lifts told the same story for free.

Strength retention is an imperfect but free longitudinal proxy: it is affected by neural factors and by being in a deficit, so it tracks tissue change loosely rather than exactly.

phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect

Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.

Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.

a mean is not a promise

That trial did not enrol the population you are asking about, so it cannot answer this.

Agreed, and the research gap being real rather than imagined is worth saying out loud.

That is a trial average in a supervised population and you are comparing your own scan to it.

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline