Energy expenditure increase from GCG component — what worked for you?

Dr.CardioMD said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome. It is a phase 2 result in a few hundred participants with no cardiovascular endpoint and no long-term safety data, and this board has a habit of treating pipeline numbers as settled.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.

Coming at Dr.ReproEndo’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

One thing that is still open after carlos_SATX’s answer:

Why adding glucagon agonism to an anti-obesity drug is not self-defeating, given that glucagon raises blood glucose?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Rereading it with the dropout table open changed my view. I still think it is the most interesting molecule in the pipeline; I no longer think the 24% is the number that will end up on a label.