Dr.MetabolicMD said:Mendelian randomization evidence supporting GLP-1 pathway modulation for cardiovascular risk: genetic variants in the GLP1R gene region associated…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:Mendelian randomization evidence supporting GLP-1 pathway modulation for cardiovascular risk: genetic variants in the GLP1R gene region associated…
Coming at Dr.MetabolicMD’s question from a different direction. The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central. GLP-1 receptor agonism in the arcuate nucleus stimulates POMC neurons and suppresses AgRP/NPY signalling, which is why the effect is appetite and food salience rather than physical fullness. Delayed gastric emptying largely tachyphylaxes over the first months; the appetite effect does not.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:Mendelian randomization evidence supporting GLP-1 pathway modulation for cardiovascular risk: genetic variants in the GLP1R gene region associated…
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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from Dr.MetabolicMD — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
DanielChem_CHI said:Anti-inflammatory mechanisms of GLP-1 agonists and cardiovascular risk: beyond weight loss, GLP-1R activation directly suppresses NF-κB signaling,…
I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.