Why Weight Comes Back

Medical Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Information is based on current medical literature and clinical guidelines but may not apply to your specific situation. Individual responses vary based on personal medical history and concurrent conditions. Always consult qualified healthcare providers for medical decisions. Never delay seeking medical care based on content you’ve read. If experiencing a medical emergency, seek immediate medical attention.

These articles provide education to enhance your healthcare partnership. All treatment decisions should involve your healthcare team. Use this knowledge to have informed discussions, not replace medical care.

In Brief

Weight regain after loss is common, and the reason is largely biological, not a matter of character. When weight falls, the body responds in ways that push toward regaining it: appetite rises, and, to a smaller degree, the body burns somewhat less energy. These changes are involuntary, measurable, and often lasting.

But that biology can be worked with. The body defends a range of weight rather than a single fixed number, and a meaningful share of people keep a significant amount off — usually through sustained effort and, for many, ongoing treatment. Regain becomes more likely when that effort or treatment lapses, when the surrounding environment reasserts itself, or when a medication that was working is stopped.

Two ideas run through the rest of this article. First, “maintain versus regain” is too coarse a lens: outcomes range from keeping the whole loss, to partial regain that still leaves a person well below baseline, to a full return, and the middle of that range is common and clinically meaningful. Second, the improvements a loss produces — in blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol — tend to fade as weight returns, so holding onto those improvements is part of cardiometabolic care, and treatment is usually ongoing rather than a course to finish and stop. This article explains the biology and how to think about it; Article 11 turns it into a durable plan.

The Body Defends Against Weight Loss

The clearest demonstration comes from an experiment that deliberately moved people’s weight up and down. When volunteers lost 10 to 20% of their weight, the calories their bodies burned fell by more than their smaller size could explain; when they were overfed to gain, energy expenditure rose. In both directions, metabolism shifted to oppose the change, and the researchers concluded that these compensatory processes may be why treatments for obesity so rarely sustain weight loss.¹

That experiment establishes the basic pattern behind the rest of this article. It has three parts: weight loss creates biological pressure toward regain; that pressure acts mainly through appetite, with a smaller contribution from reduced energy expenditure; and how much of that pressure becomes actual regain depends on the surrounding environment and on whether treatment continues. Taken together, these three points explain most of what otherwise seems puzzling about weight regain.

None of this means calories stop mattering. Weight still follows the balance of energy in and energy out; what the biology does is push on both sides of that balance — raising the drive to eat and lowering the energy burned — so that maintaining a lower weight means steadily accounting for that pressure. Being regulated does not put weight beyond a person’s influence; it means that influence has to work against a steady biological pull.

Set Point, Settling Point, and a Defended Range

It is tempting to picture a single “set point” — a thermostat in the brain fixed at one weight. The reality is less tidy. Body weight emerges from feedback between biology and environment, and researchers debate whether it is governed by an active set point, a more passive “settling point” that reflects habits and surroundings, or a model in between that defends against extremes while drifting in the middle.¹⁴ The practical point holds across all these models: the body defends a range rather than a single number, it resists loss more forcefully than gain, and that range can drift upward over years.

What Changes When Weight Falls: Appetite and Energy Use

Two systems shift toward regain, and they are not equal partners.

Appetite rises. Appetite is shaped partly by hormones from the gut and fat tissue. Ghrelin, made mainly in the stomach, drives hunger, and it rises with diet-induced weight loss.² Meanwhile signals of fullness and energy stores — leptin from fat tissue, PYY and others from the gut — fall.³ A modeling analysis put a number on the result: for each kilogram of weight lost, appetite rose enough to prompt eating roughly 100 extra calories a day — more than three times the size of the accompanying drop in energy expenditure.⁴ On average, then, this appetite feedback appears to be the larger of the two forces pulling toward regain. But that estimate is a group-level model, not a fixed ranking that holds for every individual: the balance between appetite and metabolism varies from person to person, and the figure is an average to reason from, not a number to apply literally to anyone.

This appetite pressure does not always feel like dramatic hunger. More often it is quieter and easy to misread — portions that creep up, a sense of fullness that fades sooner, more frequent thoughts about food, stronger cravings for specific foods. What the biology changes is the effort required to sustain the eating patterns that produced the loss: hunger, satiety, and food preoccupation all shift in the direction that makes eating less harder to hold to than it was before.

The body burns somewhat less energy. Alongside the appetite change, energy expenditure falls — partly because a smaller body needs fewer calories, and partly by an extra amount beyond that, a phenomenon called adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic adaptation.¹ How large this extra reduction is, and how much it matters for any one person, is genuinely debated; that some downward adjustment occurs is well established. What it is not is a “ruined” or “broken” metabolism. The metabolism of someone at a reduced weight is doing what a healthy regulatory system does — it is lower mainly because the body is smaller, with a modest additional adjustment on top.

Weight Loss, Lean Mass, and Function

Weight loss is not only loss of fat: depending on the diet, rate of loss, age, and activity, some of the weight lost can be lean mass, including muscle.¹⁹ The reason this matters is mainly functional. Muscle underpins strength, balance, and the ability to stay active — the capacities that make long-term weight management and healthy aging possible. (Its effect on calorie burning is real but modest, and not the main concern.)

Lean-mass loss is not a major cause of regain — the appetite and energy-expenditure changes above do most of that work. The practical point is narrower and well founded: adequate protein and regular resistance or strengthening exercise help preserve muscle and physical function during weight loss, and that value grows over the long horizon of maintenance.¹⁹

Why Weight Loss Slows and Plateaus

The same physiology explains the plateau that frustrates almost everyone. As weight falls, the energy the body burns declines and appetite rises, so the gap a person originally created between eating and burning narrows on its own. Eventually intake and expenditure meet at a new, lower weight, and loss stalls. Biological adaptation is one important contributor to why weight loss slows and eventually stabilizes — not the whole story, but a real part of it, and not a reflection of willpower.

It helps to hold two possibilities in mind. Day-to-day weight is noisy: shifts in body water, salt, glycogen, and the timing of food can flatten or even reverse the scale for a week or two while fat is still being lost, and adherence tends to drift gradually and unnoticed as the initial focus fades. So a stall over a few days or a single week usually reflects measurement noise or small, unremarked changes in intake rather than a metabolic floor. A genuine physiological plateau — where intake and a now-lower energy expenditure have rebalanced — is real too. In practice, though, these causes overlap — adaptation, drifting adherence, intake, activity, and measurement error — and are hard to separate cleanly. The practical response is to watch the trend over many weeks rather than react to any single reading, and to treat a persistent, well-measured stall as a prompt to revisit the plan rather than as proof of a metabolic limit.

Why the Changes Can Persist

If these shifts faded when the diet ended, maintenance would mean surviving a hard few weeks. They last far longer. In one closely studied group, a year after weight loss the appetite hormones still showed the same pattern — high hunger signals, low fullness signals — and people still reported greater hunger; the changes that encourage regain had not reverted.³ The metabolic side can persist even longer: in former contestants from a televised extreme-weight-loss competition, resting metabolism was still suppressed six years later.⁵ That was an unusually severe case of rapid, aggressive loss, and it does not prove that ordinary dieting permanently damages metabolism or that metabolic adaptation alone caused their regain — but it shows how durable the body’s response can be. Notably, the reduced energy expenditure persists even in people who successfully keep weight off, which is part of why long-term maintainers describe it as continuing work.⁶

One emerging line of research asks whether these changes persist at the cellular level. In a 2024 study, fat tissue from people who had lost substantial weight still carried molecular marks of their earlier obesity, and in mice these epigenetic changes appeared to prime fat cells for faster regain — an “obesogenic memory.”¹⁵ In humans this has so far been described rather than shown to cause regain, and it does not yet change how weight is managed clinically. It is a promising area of research, not an established major cause of human weight regain — worth knowing about, but not a reason to treat regain as biologically inevitable.

Biology Meets the Environment

Biology also interacts with daily life. The everyday environment that made weight gain easy in the first place is still there afterward, and it is now harder to navigate because appetite pressure has increased. The relevant exposures are specific and mundane: portion sizes that have normalized upward over decades; how often meals come from restaurants and takeout, which tend to be larger and denser; calories taken in liquid form, which register poorly on fullness; how visible and within-reach food is at home and at work; what the household routinely buys and keeps stocked; irregular schedules that disrupt eating and sleep; and days built around sitting.

The key idea is that small, recurring exposures matter more once appetite is running higher. A snack within reach, a default drink, a slightly larger restaurant portion — each is trivial alone, but each now operates in the setting of greater average biological pressure to eat and, for many people, weaker satiety signals, and they repeat daily. This is why durable maintenance usually means changing the surroundings and routines a person lives inside, reducing the decisions that have to be won on willpower alone — not only resolving to try harder within an unchanged environment.

Maintenance Is a Spectrum

It is easy to picture only two outcomes: keep the weight off, or gain it all back. The real pattern is a range — from keeping nearly the entire loss, to partial regain that still leaves a person well below baseline, to a full return, and sometimes regain past the starting point. Treating anything short of perfect maintenance as failure misreads both the biology and the clinical value of what is kept.

A simple example makes the point. Consider someone who loses 40 pounds, later regains 15, and settles about 25 pounds below where they started. That is a different situation — biologically and clinically — from “the weight came back.” The person has kept a substantial share of the loss. Partial regain after a large initial loss is not the same as returning to baseline, and it is not treatment failure.

This spectrum is also why studies of regain are hard to compare, and why headline numbers can seem to conflict. Different studies define regain differently: the percentage of initial body weight regained, the percentage of the lost weight regained, crossing back above a chosen threshold, or a full return to baseline. Two studies can describe the same underlying pattern and report very different-looking figures. When a statistic about regain seems alarming or reassuring, the definition behind it usually deserves a second look.

Why Some People Do Maintain

Against this backdrop, it would be easy to conclude that regain is inevitable. It is not. In the largest and longest lifestyle trial of its kind — conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes — an intensive program with structured, ongoing support left 50% of participants at a clinically meaningful loss (at least 5% of body weight) at year 8, and among those who had lost at least 10% in the first year, nearly 40% still held that larger loss at year 8.¹² The two figures use different denominators — the first counts everyone in the program; the second counts only the early strong responders — but both point the same way: maintenance is difficult, and for a substantial share of people it is achievable.

What separates those who maintain is less mysterious than it sounds. Systematic reviews of long-term maintainers point to consistent behaviors — regular self-monitoring, sustained physical activity, and eating patterns that keep energy intake in check — rather than a special metabolism or superior discipline.¹¹ Two caveats belong alongside this. Obesity is heterogeneous: its biology, severity, and response to treatment vary widely, and so does how hard maintenance is. And maintenance is not the passive aftermath of weight loss but an active phase of treatment in its own right — often as demanding as losing the weight, and requiring its own structure and, for many, ongoing medication or surgical follow-up. What that structure looks like in practice is the subject of Article 11.

How Regain Differs After Lifestyle, Medication, and Surgery

The underlying defense of body weight is shared, but it surfaces differently depending on how weight was lost — and the routes are not biologically interchangeable. The table below is a summary; the paragraphs that follow give the detail that a one-line entry cannot.

After lifestyle-based loss, the appetite and energy-expenditure changes above operate continuously, so much of the initial loss is gradually regained over the following years unless a person keeps actively working against the pull.⁷,⁸ Those who maintain do so through sustained effort, not because the pressure lifted for them. This is not an argument against lifestyle change, which improves cardiometabolic health regardless of the number on the scale (Article 4); it is a reason to treat the initial loss as the start of a long phase.

After stopping medication, the newer weight medications work while taken; stopping them removes the treatment, not the condition. Individual withdrawal trials show this directly — in the STEP 1 extension, participants regained about two-thirds of their lost weight in the year after semaglutide and lifestyle support were withdrawn, with cardiometabolic improvements largely reverting toward baseline,⁹ while a tirzepatide trial showed the mirror image, with those who continued the drug holding or extending their loss and those switched to placebo regaining substantially.¹⁰ A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis shows that the broader pattern extends across multiple weight-management medications: pooling 37 studies and 9,341 participants, it found that stopping these medications was followed by weight regain averaging about 0.4 kg per month (faster for the newer GLP-1–based medicines) and a reversal of the improvements in cardiometabolic markers, with regain faster after medication than after behavioral programs, independent of how much weight had been lost.¹⁶ (Much of that pooled data comes from older medications, though the pattern appeared consistent across classes — a reason to plan transitions, not a reason to distrust the drugs.)

During continued treatment, it is worth knowing that weight typically reaches a plateau rather than falling indefinitely, even while a medication is taken as prescribed. This does not mean the drug has “stopped working”: bodyweight is being defended at a lower level, not driven endlessly downward. A plateau, or a small regain, on ongoing therapy is a prompt to review the whole picture — adherence, dose, behavior, other medications, life circumstances — rather than to conclude that treatment has failed.

After surgery, the operation produces a larger and more durable loss than other approaches, and a useful way to describe why is that it appears to lower the level the body defends — through altered appetite regulation, changes in gut–brain hormone signaling, shifts in food preference, and other mechanisms. That “lowered set point” is a helpful conceptual model rather than a directly measured clinical fact, and it does not switch the biology off: some regain is common, as the recurrence discussion in Article 7 details. The theme across all three routes is the same: the body defends its weight however that weight is lost.

When Treatment Changes: Planning the Transition

People stop or change weight treatment for many understandable reasons — cost, access, side effects, pregnancy planning, or simple preference. The useful response to any of these is a prospective maintenance discussion, not an abrupt conceptual return to “diet harder.” Because stopping a medication predictably removes its effect, the questions worth raising with a clinician before a change are practical: what alternative treatment, behavioral structure, monitoring, and follow-up will be in place, and what early signs of regain would prompt a check-in. This is not a prescriptive protocol, and the right plan is individual. The point is that a planned transition treats discontinuation as a change in an ongoing condition’s management, which is what it is.

When Weight Comes Back: Fluctuation, and What to Check

Two practical points help separate a false alarm from a genuine change.

A number on the scale is not the same as fat regain. Body weight swings day to day and week to week with fluid, salt, carbohydrate stores, and the timing of meals — shifts of a few pounds that mean nothing about fat. What matters is the trend over weeks. And the scale is not the whole story: waist measurement, strength, fitness, and blood markers can move independently of weight, which is why they belong in any honest reading of how things are going (Articles 3 and 4).

When a genuine upward trend appears, the useful question is not “why did I fail?” but “what changed?” Regain is usually gradual and has identifiable contributors, and catching it early makes it far easier to address. The checklist below is ordered roughly from the most common and most actionable contributors to the least common; it is a way to think, not a treatment plan, and the response itself belongs with a clinician and is the work of Article 11.

The right response is matched to the situation — its size, its pace, the person’s health, and the original treatment — and it often means reconnecting with care and, where appropriate, restarting or intensifying treatment rather than simply resolving to try harder alone.

What Regain Means for Cardiovascular Risk

For the heart, regain is not just a return of pounds — but the evidence has layers worth keeping distinct, because they are not equally strong.

The best-supported layer is that risk factors recur. Lower blood pressure, better blood sugar, and improved cholesterol fade as weight returns, as both the semaglutide-withdrawal data and the 2026 pooled analysis show directly.⁹,¹⁶ Holding a loss tends to preserve those improvements; losing it tends to give them back.

Whether intentional weight loss reduces hard events — heart attacks and strokes — is less certain, and depends on the intervention and population. Look AHEAD, the large intensive-lifestyle trial in adults with type 2 diabetes, improved risk factors, fitness, and quality of life yet did not reduce cardiovascular events over roughly a decade, a result that may partly reflect the modest long-term weight difference between groups, among other factors.¹⁸ By contrast, in the SELECT trial semaglutide cut major adverse cardiovascular events by about 20% in people with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but without diabetes;¹⁷ a later prespecified (exploratory) analysis found this benefit was largely independent of the amount of weight lost, pointing to mechanisms beyond weight change itself.²⁰ For semaglutide in this population, the cardiovascular benefit cannot be understood simply as a direct function of pounds lost.

Preserving the risk-factor improvements a loss produced is worthwhile, but “any maintained weight loss prevents heart disease” claims more than the evidence supports — hard-outcome benefit is best established for specific drug therapies, not inferred automatically from weight change.

This frames a common worry — that repeated loss and regain (“weight cycling”) may itself harm the heart. Observational studies do link greater weight fluctuation to more cardiovascular events and higher mortality, including in coronary disease.¹³ But much of that fluctuation is unintentional — driven by illness or advancing disease, which independently worsen outcomes — so it cannot be read as proof that deliberately losing weight and regaining some is dangerous. That distinction between intentional and unintentional weight change is central to reading these studies at all. The takeaway is not to avoid weight loss for fear of regain; it is that sustained improvements matter more for long-term risk than transient ones.

What Maintenance Success Can Look Like

Because the outcome is a spectrum, so is success. It is worth naming what “doing well” can include, since a scale-only definition sets a standard the biology makes needlessly hard to meet.

Depending on which outcomes are measured, each can protect real health relative to a full return or continued gain — and defining success this way is both more humane and more clinically accurate than an all-or-nothing standard.

Regain Is a Biological Response

Reading regain as proof that someone lacked discipline rests on a false premise — that body weight is fully under conscious control. It is not; regain is driven by measurable, involuntary changes in appetite and metabolism.⁷ This cuts two ways: self-blame is misplaced (a theme Article 10 takes up directly), but so is fatalism. The fact that the body resists weight loss is a reason to build a stronger, better-supported plan — not a reason to stop trying.

Clinical Bottom Line

Weight regain is common because the body actively defends its weight — mainly by raising appetite, and to a lesser degree by lowering energy expenditure — and these changes are involuntary and can persist. But a defended weight is not a fixed one, and the outcome is a spectrum: many people keep all or much of a loss, and partial regain that leaves someone well below baseline is a real success, not a failure. Regain also does not prove the original treatment produced no benefit; it can mean that the treatment effect was not fully maintained. So when weight returns, the most useful response is to treat it as information — an occasion to reassess the maintenance system and the treatment plan, and to reconnect with care early — rather than a signal to simply restrict harder for a while.

What Comes Next

Understanding why weight is defended, and how maintaining a loss relates to cardiovascular risk, leads to the question the next article takes on directly: how weight actually affects the cardiovascular system. Article 9 examines how excess adiposity intersects with specific conditions — coronary disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and others — and why the evidence for weight loss is not identical across every one of them.

Key Terms

Defended body weight (set point / settling point): The weight range the body works to maintain, resisting loss more forcefully than gain. “Set point” implies a fixed value; the evidence fits a defended range, shaped by biology and environment, that can drift upward over time.

Adaptive thermogenesis (metabolic adaptation): The reduction in energy burned after weight loss that is greater than the smaller body size alone would predict. Its magnitude and clinical importance are debated; it is not a sign of a “damaged” metabolism.

Appetite feedback: The rise in hunger and drive to eat that follows weight loss, roughly proportional to the amount lost. On average it appears to be the larger of the two homeostatic forces driving regain, though the balance varies between individuals.

Leptin: A hormone released by fat tissue that signals energy stores to the brain. It falls with weight loss, and the brain reads the drop as a deficit to correct.

Ghrelin: A hormone made mainly in the stomach that drives hunger. It rises with diet-induced weight loss.

Partial regain: Regaining some, but not all, of a weight loss — for example, losing 40 pounds and settling 25 below baseline. Distinct from a full return to baseline; it keeps a substantial share of the loss.

Obesogenic memory: An emerging concept in which tissues, including fat, retain molecular changes from prior obesity after weight loss. Shown to prime faster regain in mice; in humans, described but not yet shown to cause regain, and not yet a factor in clinical management.

Weight cycling: Repeated loss and regain (“yo-yo” dieting). Observational data associate greater weight fluctuation with worse cardiovascular outcomes, but the evidence is confounded by unintentional, illness-related weight change.

Energy balance: The relationship between calories consumed and calories burned. Weight regulation works by adjusting both sides of this balance, which is why body weight is “regulated” without calories ceasing to matter.

References

1. Leibel RL, Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(10):621–628. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199503093321001
2. Cummings DE, Weigle DS, Frayo RS, et al. Plasma ghrelin levels after diet-induced weight loss or gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1623–1630. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012908
3. Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Delbridge E, et al. Long-term persistence of hormonal adaptations to weight loss. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(17):1597–1604. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816
4. Polidori D, Sanghvi A, Seeley RJ, Hall KD. How strongly does appetite counter weight loss? Quantification of the feedback control of human energy intake. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24(11):2289–2295. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21653
5. Fothergill E, Guo J, Howard L, et al. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24(8):1612–1619. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21538
6. Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Gallagher DA, Leibel RL. Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88(4):906–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/88.4.906
7. Busetto L, Bettini S, Makaronidis J, Roberts CA, Halford JCG, Batterham RL. Mechanisms of weight regain. Eur J Intern Med. 2021;93:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2021.01.002
8. Hall KD, Kahan S. Maintenance of lost weight and long-term management of obesity. Med Clin North Am. 2018;102(1):183–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2017.08.012
9. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Davies M, et al. Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: the STEP 1 trial extension. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(8):1553–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14725
10. Aronne LJ, Sattar N, Horn DB, et al. Continued treatment with tirzepatide for maintenance of weight reduction in adults with obesity: the SURMOUNT-4 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(1):38–48. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.24945
11. Varkevisser RDM, van Stralen MM, Kroeze W, Ket JCF, Steenhuis IHM. Determinants of weight loss maintenance: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2019;20(2):171–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12772
12. Look AHEAD Research Group; Wadden TA, Bantle JP, Blackburn GL, et al. Eight-year weight losses with an intensive lifestyle intervention: the Look AHEAD study. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.20662
13. Bangalore S, Fayyad R, Laskey R, DeMicco DA, Messerli FH, Waters DD. Body-weight fluctuations and outcomes in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1332–1340. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606148
14. Speakman JR, Levitsky DA, Allison DB, et al. Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity. Dis Model Mech. 2011;4(6):733–745. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.008698
15. Hinte LC, Castellano-Castillo D, Ghosh A, et al. Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss. Nature. 2024;636(8042):457–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08165-7
16. West S, Scragg J, Aveyard P, et al. Weight regain after cessation of medication for weight management: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2026;392:e085304. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-085304
17. Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2221–2232. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2307563
18. Look AHEAD Research Group; Wing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FL, et al. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914
19. Cava E, Yeat NC, Mittendorfer B. Preserving healthy muscle during weight loss. Adv Nutr. 2017;8(3):511–519. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.014506
20. Deanfield J, Lincoff AM, Kahn SE, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes by baseline and changes in adiposity measurements: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial. Lancet. 2025;406:2257–2268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01375-3

HeartBuddi • Your heart. Own it.