GLP1 Weight Loss Drugs: Dr. Craig Koniver Explains

Feb 01, 2025

GLP1 Drugs and Weight Loss History

The emergence of GLP1 agonists as weight loss medications represents one of the most significant shifts in obesity treatment of the past decade. While these compounds, such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, were initially approved for type 2 diabetes management, their weight loss effects quickly captured both medical and public attention.

Koniver explains that most medications in America are prescribed off-label, meaning they’re used for purposes beyond their original FDA approval. This flexibility allowed physicians to leverage GLP1s’ weight loss potential even before formal approval for this indication. The progression was natural: from diabetes management to weight loss in diabetics, and finally to general weight loss applications.

The debate around GLP1s often centers on two opposing viewpoints. Critics argue these medications create dependency and emphasize the importance of lifestyle interventions like exercise and proper nutrition. Proponents highlight their effectiveness and safety profile, particularly in a country grappling with an obesity epidemic.

According to Koniver, the value of GLP1s lies in their ability to create immediate success, which then motivates lasting behavioral change. “I like to help people win the race first, which then helps them motivate to train for the next race,” he explains. This approach inverts the traditional medical paradigm of struggle-first, results-later.

This perspective is supported by real-world evidence. Koniver shares an account of a successful professional woman whose life transformed through GLP1 treatment. Beyond mere weight loss, she experienced improved workout performance, enhanced self-image, and increased daily motivation.

Huberman notes that the benefits extend beyond aesthetics. Adipose tissue produces hormones that significantly impact brain function, and emerging research in metabolic psychiatry is revealing stronger connections between body composition and cognitive health. This suggests that weight loss interventions like GLP1s might offer cognitive benefits alongside their more visible effects.

The medical community’s growing acceptance of these medications reflects a broader shift in how we approach weight management. Rather than viewing pharmaceutical intervention as a last resort, it’s increasingly seen as a valid tool that can work in concert with lifestyle modifications to achieve sustainable results.

GLP1 Weight Loss and Inflammation Effects

GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide have garnered significant attention for their weight loss effects, but concerns about muscle loss have emerged. However, this challenge isn’t insurmountable – it’s about implementation strategy.

Koniver’s clinical experience reveals that conventional dosing often leads to excessive weight loss rates. His solution? Microdosing through compounded formulations. By starting with minimal doses and progressing gradually, patients can maintain a sustainable weight loss of about two pounds per week, significantly reducing muscle mass concerns.

This methodical approach, combined with resistance training and adequate protein intake, has proven to be transformative. The stark contrast is evident when comparing it to aggressive protocols where patients lose 15 pounds in three weeks – a path that often leads to rebound weight gain and the notorious “Ozempic face” characterized by excessive facial fat loss.

But the benefits extend beyond mere weight management. Emerging evidence suggests these medications offer cognitive improvements and, surprisingly, significant anti-inflammatory effects. Koniver has observed remarkable reductions in inflammation markers among autoimmune patients, particularly those with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

The mechanism behind these anti-inflammatory effects remains complex. It could be a direct impact on immune pathways, an indirect result of reduced adipose tissue, or even the psychological benefits of improved self-image creating positive physiological cascades. One compelling case involves a 50-year-old Hashimoto’s patient whose thyroid peroxidase antibody levels – typically stubborn to traditional interventions – showed notable improvement with GLP-1 treatment.

The key insight here isn’t just about the medication itself, but the importance of strategic implementation. Like many powerful tools in medicine, GLP-1s require precise calibration – a slow, measured approach often yields superior long-term results compared to aggressive protocols.

This therapeutic evolution exemplifies how refinements in implementation strategy can transform a medication’s risk-benefit profile, potentially expanding its utility beyond its primary indication of weight management into broader metabolic and immunological applications.

GLP1 Drug Costs and Pharmaceutical Control

The pharmaceutical industry’s grip on GLP1 agonists reveals a concerning pattern in healthcare accessibility and cost control. These drugs, particularly effective for visceral fat reduction, have become blockbuster medications generating enormous profits for pharmaceutical companies.

Currently, compounding pharmacies can produce these medications at significantly lower costs because pharmaceutical patents cover the delivery system (the pen) rather than the peptide itself. This has made these treatments more accessible to the general public, especially during supply shortages.

However, as Koniver points out, there are troubling indicators that pharmaceutical companies, now rebuilding their supply chains, may move to restrict compounding abilities. This would force patients to rely solely on traditional, brand-name versions at substantially higher prices—approximately $1,500 monthly without insurance coverage.

This potential shift illustrates a broader issue in pharmaceutical control: when affordable alternatives emerge, large companies often leverage their influence to eliminate these options, prioritizing profit over accessibility. The monthly cost of these medications equals or exceeds many Americans’ housing expenses, creating a significant barrier to treatment.

While some FDA-approved peptides like ipamorelin and cumarelin seem secure in their current status, the industry’s movement toward restricting compounding options could set a concerning precedent. This situation exemplifies how pharmaceutical companies can manipulate market dynamics to maintain price control, even when more affordable alternatives are technically possible.

The challenge moving forward will be maintaining treatment accessibility while working within the constraints of an increasingly restrictive pharmaceutical landscape. As Koniver suggests, healthcare providers may need to explore creative alternatives to ensure patients can access these beneficial treatments without facing extreme financial burden.

Read Andrew Huberman

Discussion about this post