opinions on combined therapy, glp + metformin?

[Cluni0n]

A HOMA of 7.9 is actually a pretty significant marker of insulin resistance, even with normal fasting glucose and A1C. A lot of people are missing this piece because they're focused only on whether youre “diabetic” or if metformij a good choice for weight loss.

The reason your doctor is considering something like metformin isn’t necessarily because it’s a powerful weight-loss medication by itself. It’s because it targets the underlying insulin resistance that your labs are showing.

HOMA basically looks at the relationship between your fasting glucose and fasting insulin levels. You can still have normal glucose while your body is producing a LOT of insulin behind the scenes to keep it there. That elevated insulin all thentikenspace can make fat loss harder, increase hunger/cravings for some people, and over time may progress toward prediabetes or metabolic dysfunction.

So when people say, “metformin won’t make you lose weight,” they’re kind of missing the point of why it’s being prescribed in cases like yours. The goal is often improving insulin sensitivity and lowering the amount of insulin your body has to produce.... not just chasing scale loss alone but also so that you CAN lose weight.

And honestly, your doctor’s thought process about combination therapy is not unusual at all anymore. Lower-dose GLP1s combined with metformin can sometimes:

improve insulin sensitivity from multiple angles

help appetite/satiety

allow lower doses and fewer side effect

support mpre metabolic improvement

help preserve lean mass better when paired with adequate protein and resistance training

Also, your point about muscle mass matters more than people realize. Someone with higher muscle mass can absolutely have normal looking glucose and A1C for a long time because muscle helps buffer glucose effectively... Mmwhile insulin resistance is still developing underneath. That’s exactly why fasting insulin and HOMA can be so helpful clinically.

You’re asking smart questions and looking beyond “which drug causes the fastest weight loss,” which is honestly the more important long term conversation with that HOMA.

Thank you for this! I think you're the person who understood my point the best. That's exactly what I'm aiming for: using (small dose) Metformin to directly activate the AMPK pathway and target that cellular sensitivity + a small dose of a GLP so it can handle the hunger hormones. I have no intention of using high doses of either medication; I just want to give my body that little push so the machine can start working properly again.

I'm 23 years old, which I hope plays in my favor. I have a high amount of muscle mass bc of genetics + I was very active during my teenage years, did strength training for years, and always kept a relatively high-protein diet. But in the last few years, my cortisol levels went completely out of control, antidepressants made it worse. It was crazy to see how I started accumulating fat and gaining weight, even though my daily habits weren't thaaat much worse than when I weighed 30 kg/66 lbs less.

Since September 2025, I managed to lower my fasting glucose (it was 99 before, now 88), cut my total and LDL cholesterol in half, and reduced my inflammation (ESR) to the bare minimum (thanks berberine+myo-inositol combo), but despite all that internal progress, I only lost about 3 kg (7 lbs). That's why I'm considering these combined options now to finally see the physical results of that effort while healing insulin resistance )

 

[Calm Logic]

OP here, I have 2 options, ordering some grey Reta, oooor metformin+ozempic, I still haven't bought reta bc i wanted to receive all my lab results+abdominal ultrasound first, and also bc I'm waiting for the EU restock to decide lol, so yes just doing as much research as I can to see what would work best in my case , I started reading more about this combined therapy a few days ago so that's why I posted this thread.

OG tirz isn't an option, totally out of my budget, grey tirz could be an option yes, but in that case i think i'd prefer reta.

Hope it's clearer now!

I don't personally know anyone who would prefer sema, metformin, or their combination over reta, unless they could not tolerate some of the glucagon sides from reta. Everyone I know is on tirz, reta, or some combination of both, as with most of the grey GLP users.

 

[lessthanhalf]

I would have to agree with reta or tirz over sema with metformin. I suggested tirzepatide as it sounded like something you were discussing with your doctor, and assumes he or she is not going to recommend an unapproved drug. Sema plus metformin sounds like it would have pretty high rates of gut side effects.

And given it sounds like you want to lose a fair bit of weight BMI of 22.5 is about 58-59kg, or BMI of 25 is 65kg and current weight is 102kg ( sorry but I do not think in pounds ), , assuming you want to get to the top of the normal weight range at a BMI of 25 , requires losing 37kg. This sounds like a task better suited to reta, given its best average weight loss is 29%. Getting to normal weight is not critical for health, getting somewhere near there is a reasonable goal and carries most of the health benefits, and is actually realistically achievable with reta or tirz.

I realise you are saying you would like to use a low dose of GLP drug, but I would like to argue against that. Obviously if you end up being a super responder and can get away with a low dose great, but for many reasons including long term health and quality of life, using GLP drugs to get the maximum benefit , which is maximum weight loss, the dose you are likely to need to get towards the normal weight range is fairly likely to be a higher rather than a lower dose, assuming side effects are not a problem. And at the start you start on low doses anyway and just adjust the dose as needed. I can guarantee that if I had the option of these drugs 35 years ago I would have jumped at the chance.

My guess is there is probably not enough added benefit from metformin to justify the fairly high rate of gut side effects, if you are taking reta or tirz, which mostly have the same or similar long term health benefits except they are better at it.

 

[Jfrick11]

Thank you for this! I think you're the person who understood my point the best. That's exactly what I'm aiming for: using (small dose) Metformin to directly activate the AMPK pathway and target that cellular sensitivity + a small dose of a GLP so it can handle the hunger hormones. I have no intention of using high doses of either medication; I just want to give my body that little push so the machine can start working properly again.

I'm 23 years old, which I hope plays in my favor. I have a high amount of muscle mass bc of genetics + I was very active during my teenage years, did strength training for years, and always kept a relatively high-protein diet. But in the last few years, my cortisol levels went completely out of control, antidepressants made it worse. It was crazy to see how I started accumulating fat and gaining weight, even though my daily habits weren't thaaat much worse than when I weighed 30 kg/66 lbs less.

Since September 2025, I managed to lower my fasting glucose (it was 99 before, now 88), cut my total and LDL cholesterol in half, and reduced my inflammation (ESR) to the bare minimum (thanks berberine+myo-inositol combo), but despite all that internal progress, I only lost about 3 kg (7 lbs). That's why I'm considering these combined options now to finally see the physical results of that effort while healing insulin resistance )

You’re actually describing something a lot more nuanced than “I just want appetite suppression and fast weight loss,” and I think that’s why some people are misunderstanding your approach.

At 23, with a strong muscle base and years of resistance training history, you probably do have a lot working in your favor metabolically. And the fact that you’ve already improved fasting glucose, LDL, inflammation markers, etc. tells me your body is responding to the changes you’ve made internally.... even if the scale hasn’t reflected it much yet.

That disconnect between “my biomarkers improved” and “why does my body composition still feel stuck?” is actually really common in significant insulin resistance and chronic stress states. Elevated cortisol, antidepressants, disrupted sleep/stress signaling, and hyperinsulinemia can absolutely shift where and how the body stores fat, independent of someone suddenly becoming sedentary or eating wildly differently.

And honestly, a HOMA-IR of 7.9 at your age is exactly why your doctor is looking at this proactively instead of waiting until your A1C becomes abnormal years from now.

Your explanation about using:

metformin more for insulin signaling/AMPK activation and improving sensitivity

GLP-1 more for appetite and hormonal regulation

while keeping doses conservative

…is a very reasonable framework medically. Especially since you’re pairing it with lifestyle changes you’ve already proving you can sustain.

Also, people can tend to oversimplify weight regulation into calories in/calories out, but endocrine signaling matters a lot. Two people can eat the same and respond very differently depending on insulin levels, stress hormones, medications, sleep, inflammation, muscle mass, and genetics.

The other thing I’d point out is this: losing only 7ish lbs while dramatically improving metabolic markers does not mean your efforts failed. In many cases, it means you’ve been improving the underlying physiology first. Sometimes the visible body comp changes lag behind the internal metabolic improvements.

And honestly? The fact that you’re approaching this thoughtfully, conservatively, and with long term metabolic health in mind at 23 probably gives you a much better chance of success than people who jump straight into aggressive dosing without addressing the underlying picture.

 

[tubby]

A HOMA of 7.9 is actually a pretty significant marker of insulin resistance, even with normal fasting glucose and A1C. A lot of people are missing this piece because they're focused only on whether youre “diabetic” or if metformij a good choice for weight loss.

The reason your doctor is considering something like metformin isn’t necessarily because it’s a powerful weight-loss medication by itself. It’s because it targets the underlying insulin resistance that your labs are showing.

It's not that we missed it so much as it's just not that relevant. You might as well be encouraging someone to take garlic with their antibiotic because garlic can also help fight the infection. While true, it's going to be a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking.

The GLP on its own (assuming OP has a normal response to it) will significantly improve insulin resistance (both directly and via weight loss). That's not to say OP shouldn't take metformin (this is a complex decision), but an indication of insulin resistance is hardly a slam dunk case for combination therapy vs mono therapy here.

I guess if I were paying for both, prescription metformin is certainly less expensive than prescription GLP and I could lean towards metformin from a cost perspective, but even that logic fails for combination therapy since the way GLPs are priced at the pharmacy, it's usually per month rather than per mg.

 

[Jfrick11]

It's not that we missed it so much as it's just not that relevant. You might as well be encouraging someone to take garlic with their antibiotic because garlic can also help fight the infection. While true, it's going to be a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking.

The GLP on its own (assuming OP has a normal response to it) will significantly improve insulin resistance (both directly and via weight loss). That's not to say OP shouldn't take metformin (this is a complex decision), but an indication of insulin resistance is hardly a slam dunk case for combination therapy vs mono therapy here.

I guess if I were paying for both, prescription metformin is certainly less expensive than prescription GLP and I could lean towards metformin from a cost perspective, but even that logic fails for combination therapy since the way GLPs are priced at the pharmacy, it's usually per month rather than per mg.

The point is more that the OP’s doctor isn’t looking only at “which medication causes the most pounds lost fastest.” They’re looking at the OP’s specific metabolic picture: a HOMA of 7.9 at age 23, preserved muscle mass, normal A1C/glucose despite significant hyperinsulinemia, cortisol history, antidepressant associated weight gain, and evidence that they’ve already improved metabolic markers substantially through lifestyle interventions.

In that context, metformin isn’t necessarily being viewed as a “mini weight loss drug.” It’s being considered as a targeted insulin sensitizing therapy alongside a lower dose GLP approach.

And honestly, medicine is full of situations where two therapies overlap mechanistically but are still combined because they target different parts of the physiology or improve tolerability/adherence. We do that all the time in hypertension, diabetes, lipids, autoimmune disease, etc.

Also, saying insulin resistance “isn’t that relevant” in someone with a HOMA near 8 feels a little dismissive of what the doctor is actually trying to treat. The OP’s glucose is normal because their pancreas is producing large amounts of insulin to maintain it. That compensatory phase can exist for years before overt glucose abnormalities show up.

Could a GLP alone improve that with his metabolic picture? Maybe, with time. Could metformin ultimately add only modest benefit? Also possible. But that’s different from saying the rationale behind combination therapy is pointless or medically irrational.

I actually think the more important thing here is that the OP is approaching this thoughtfully instead of treating these medications like a race to the most aggressive stack possible.

 

[Habibibi]

The point is more that the OP’s doctor isn’t looking only at “which medication causes the most pounds lost fastest.” They’re looking at the OP’s specific metabolic picture: a HOMA of 7.9 at age 23, preserved muscle mass, normal A1C/glucose despite significant hyperinsulinemia, cortisol history, antidepressant associated weight gain, and evidence that they’ve already improved metabolic markers substantially through lifestyle interventions.

In that context, metformin isn’t necessarily being viewed as a “mini weight loss drug.” It’s being considered as a targeted insulin sensitizing therapy alongside a lower dose GLP approach.

And honestly, medicine is full of situations where two therapies overlap mechanistically but are still combined because they target different parts of the physiology or improve tolerability/adherence. We do that all the time in hypertension, diabetes, lipids, autoimmune disease, etc.

Also, saying insulin resistance “isn’t that relevant” in someone with a HOMA near 8 feels a little dismissive of what the doctor is actually trying to treat. The OP’s glucose is normal because their pancreas is producing large amounts of insulin to maintain it. That compensatory phase can exist for years before overt glucose abnormalities show up.

Could a GLP alone improve that with his metabolic picture? Maybe, with time. Could metformin ultimately add only modest benefit? Also possible. But that’s different from saying the rationale behind combination therapy is pointless or medically irrational.

I actually think the more important thing here is that the OP is approaching this thoughtfully instead of treating these medications like a race to the most aggressive stack possible.

If it's all about insulin resistance for her, then why call on a GLP1 anyway? Metformin, SGLT2 will work pretty well. Why is she bothering with GLP1?

 

[tubby]

Also, saying insulin resistance “isn’t that relevant” in someone with a HOMA near 8 feels a little dismissive of what the doctor is actually trying to treat. The OP’s glucose is normal because their pancreas is producing large amounts of insulin to maintain it. That compensatory phase can exist for years before overt glucose abnormalities show up.

I'm not sure why you're being purposely dense here. Obviously insulin resistance is very relevant (that's why we're discussing it). It's just not a relevant factor in deciding between GLP alone VS GLP + metformin, as both generally improve it. It appears you just read the first sentence of my post and skipped the rest... and then proceeded to write a long monologue arguing against a point I never made.

 

[tubby]

To be clear, my position is that OP should do something, but that something would most likely be starting with either a GLP OR metformin rather than immediately jumping to both a GLP AND metformin at the same time, unless there's something unique about their situation that justifies dual treatment.

Not directly relevant to OP, but there's a separate mono-therapy VS dual-therapy debate/controversy within the endocrinology space in regards to what is best for treating new diabetics that I'll unpack here, since it's kind of interesting. Historically, a new diabetic was started on metformin alone, to see if lifestyle + metformin was sufficient treatment. Recently the ADA has published arguments from doctors suggesting that starting those patients on metformin + GLP (or SGLT2 or others) right off the bat makes more sense than metformin alone. I don't personally agree with their positions, but I understand why they're making them, since many (perhaps even most) diabetics don't find long-term resolution through metformin alone.

I think such doctors are committing a logical fallacy in advancing that position. It is based on the traditional approach to treating diabetes, which is to start with metformin and keep adding on additional other drugs as the disease progresses, which historically was a sensible way to treat diabetes. Those doctors are assuming a certain inevitability for diabetes that simple doesn't exist anymore with the advent of modern GLP drugs. By being trapped in the thinking that new drugs should be added rather than replaced, pharma benefits through more prescriptions being filled, but many patients will be taking a larger number of different drugs when a modern GLP might very well be sufficient on its own. Although in this case it's not a cash grab (nobody is getting rich off of metformin), but just "we've always done it this way" being mistakenly applied to clinical decision making by a large medical organization.

 

[Jfrick11]

I read your post just fine.

You said insulin resistance “isn’t that relevant” to the decision because GLPs already improve it. My point was that the severity and nature of the OP’s insulin resistance is exactly why their doctor may still consider combination therapy reasonable instead of viewing every case as “just use the strongest GLP possible.”

That’s not me misunderstanding you.

That’s us disagreeing.

Also, reducing the discussion to “GLP fixes insulin resistance anyway” kind of ignores the entire nuance of why clinicians sometimes combine therapies that overlap mechanistically but act through different pathways, have different cost/access profiles, or allow lower dosing strategies.

And a Reddit analogy about garlic and antibiotics probably oversimplifies the situation more than my monologue did.

I'm not sure why you're being purposely dense here. Obviously insulin resistance is very relevant (that's why we're discussing it). It's just not a relevant factor in deciding between GLP alone VS GLP + metformin, as both generally improve it. It appears you just read the first sentence of my post and skipped the rest... and then proceeded to write a long monologue arguing against a point I never made.

 

[Jfrick11]

To be clear, my position is that OP should do something, but that something would most likely be starting with either a GLP OR metformin rather than immediately jumping to both a GLP AND metformin at the same time, unless there's something unique about their situation that justifies dual treatment.

Not directly relevant to OP, but there's a separate mono-therapy VS dual-therapy debate/controversy within the endocrinology space in regards to what is best for treating new diabetics that I'll unpack here, since it's kind of interesting. Historically, a new diabetic was started on metformin alone, to see if lifestyle + metformin was sufficient treatment. Recently the ADA has published arguments from doctors suggesting that starting those patients on metformin + GLP (or SGLT2 or others) right off the bat makes more sense than metformin alone. I don't personally agree with their positions, but I understand why they're making them, since many (perhaps even most) diabetics don't find long-term resolution through metformin alone.

I think such doctors are committing a logical fallacy in advancing that position. It is based on the traditional approach to treating diabetes, which is to start with metformin and keep adding on additional other drugs as the disease progresses, which historically was a sensible way to treat diabetes. Those doctors are assuming a certain inevitability for diabetes that simple doesn't exist anymore with the advent of modern GLP drugs. By being trapped in the thinking that new drugs should be added rather than replaced, pharma benefits through more prescriptions being filled, but many patients will be taking a larger number of different drugs when a modern GLP might very well be sufficient on its own. Although in this case it's not a cash grab (nobody is getting rich off of metformin), but just "we've always done it this way" being mistakenly applied to clinical decision making by a large medical organization.

I actually think this is a much more reasonable take than some of the earlier replies, and I agree with parts of it.

I also don’t think everyone automatically needs combo therapy. GLP monotherapy is enough for many people.

My pushback is that combination therapy isn’t just an outdated “we’ve always done it this way” thinking. In someone his age, with his score and history of significant insulin resistance despite lifestyle efforts, I don’t think it’s irrational for a doctor to consider lower dose multi pathway treatments.

Whether that added benefit is meaningful enough in the OP’s case is the unknown and the real debate. Not whether the concept itself is irrational.

 

[Jfrick11]

If it's all about insulin resistance for her, then why call on a GLP1 anyway? Metformin, SGLT2 will work pretty well. Why is she bothering with GLP1?

Because the OP literally said they want to target both:

“using (small dose) Metformin to directly activate the AMPK pathway and target that cellular sensitivity + a small dose of a GLP so it can handle the hunger hormones.”

And also:

“I just want to give my body that little push so the machine can start working properly again.”

So this was never framed as insulin resistance only. They were specifically talking about addressing both metabolic signaling and appetite regulation.

 

[tubby]

I read your post just fine.

You said insulin resistance “isn’t that relevant” to the decision because GLPs already improve it. My point was that the severity and nature of the OP’s insulin resistance is exactly why their doctor may still consider combination therapy reasonable instead of viewing every case as “just use the strongest GLP possible.”

That’s not me misunderstanding you.

That’s us disagreeing.

Also, reducing the discussion to “GLP fixes insulin resistance anyway” kind of ignores the entire nuance of why clinicians sometimes combine therapies that overlap mechanistically but act through different pathways, have different cost/access profiles, or allow lower dosing strategies.

And a Reddit analogy about garlic and antibiotics probably oversimplifies the situation more than my monologue did.

Honestly, if I were in OP's shoes (who has successfully engaged in positive lifestyle habits), I might even consider leaning towards metformin initially rather than a GLP, given its longer and more established track record. I know it's heresy to say that on this board, but just being honest.

My concern would be a doctor jumping straight to a dual therapy is mindlessly following "guidelines" rather than objectively looking at OP's unique situation and trying to prescribe the minimum intervention necessary to accomplish a desired objective. It's possible there may be some complementary benefits one could rationalize with metformin + GLP (vs either alone), but unless there are major background details being left out of the OP, I struggle to imagine what those factors would be.

Either way, a fun subject to unpack.

 

[tubby]

I don’t think it’s irrational for a doctor to consider lower dose multi pathway treatments.

Whether that added benefit is meaningful enough in the OP’s case is the unknown and the real debate. Not whether the concept itself is irrational.

Agreed, but what would be the benefit of starting both now VS starting one now and another 6-months or a year later?

And I think that's a fairly universal principle. Does jumping the gun on prong number 2 (vs giving it a few months with just the first prong) really serve to benefit the patient, or is it revenue maximization for big pharma? I'd expect the latter to more frequently be the case than the former.

 

[Jfrick11]

Honestly, if I were in OP's shoes (who has successfully engaged in positive lifestyle habits), I might even consider leaning towards metformin initially rather than a GLP, given its longer and more established track record. I know it's heresy to say that on this board, but just being honest.

My concern would be a doctor jumping straight to a dual therapy is mindlessly following "guidelines" rather than objectively looking at OP's unique situation and trying to prescribe the minimum intervention necessary to accomplish a desired objective. It's possible there may be some complementary benefits one could rationalize with metformin + GLP (vs either alone), but unless there are major background details being left out of the OP, I struggle to imagine what those factors would be.

Either way, a fun subject to unpack.

I agree with the principle of not escalating treatment unnecessarily.

I think where people differ is in how concerning they view a HOMA of 7.9 in a 23year-old who already appears highly adherent and has still struggled to achieve meaningful body comp change despite improving biomarkers.

Some clinicians would see that and think:

“Start conservatively with metformin and lifestyle.”

Others would think:

“This is significant insulin resistance early in life.... intervene more proactively while the metabolic system is still very recoverable.”

And honestly, neither perspective is completely irrational to me.

 

[Jfrick11]

Agreed, but what would be the benefit of starting both now VS starting one now and another 6-months or a year later?

And I think that's a fairly universal principle. Does jumping the gun on prong number 2 (vs giving it a few months with just the first prong) really serve to benefit the patient, or is it revenue maximization for big pharma? I'd expect the latter to more frequently be the case than the former.

Fair question and in many cases, there may not be much advantage to starting both immediately instead of sequencing them and reassessing later.

I just think it gets more nuanced in someone young with significant insulin resistance who’s already shown strong lifestyle adherence without touching the sensitivity.

And while pharma influence is definitely real, I'm not sure metformin.....a dirt cheap generic...is the strongest example of "revenue maximization". If anything, most of the financial incentive in this space points the opposite direction.

 

[Cluni0n]

Update: I had my doctor’s appointment a few days ago and here's her clinical breakdown about me

Hey everyone, thank you all for the insights on my previous post. We are actually taking a different route, and I wanted to share exactly what she explained to me point by point, just in case anyone's curious:

Here is her clinical breakdown of my case:

HOMA-IR is not a definitive diagnostic tool: She explained that HOMA is just a mathematical snapshot of a single moment in time. Insulin fluctuates constantly, and lab measurements can vary wildly depending on where you get tested (it isn't standarized accross labs). A high HOMA score naturally happens when you carry extra weight, but it doesn't automatically mean you have clinical, systemic insulin resistance if the rest of your metabolic markers are perfect, She also mentioned something about how it has shown in studies that it isn't even truly correlated with the actual diagnostic "gold standard" (the euglycemic clamp), but yeah maybe that's too technical lol.

The "Extra Effort" concept: She looked at my whole picture: clean liver/the abdominal ultrasound where everything was okay/healthy, normal A1C, optimal lipids, and fasting glucose of 88. She told me sth like my isolated high HOMA-IR is basically just a reflection of the "extra effort" my body has to make to handle glucose through my current volume of adipose tissue, not a systemic failure of my organs. I am actually metabolically healthy.

Why we are skipping Metformin: I originally "considered" (I was just curious) Metformin strictly to heal the insulin resistance, not for weight loss . However, she explained it simply isn't necessary in my case because I don't have a fatty liver or other typical clinical markers to diagnose systemic IR. My body already responded beautifully (her words lol) to my lifestyle changes and supplements (Berberine + Inositol), and the proof is in my labs:
Sept 2025: Fasting Glucose 99, A1C 5.1, Total Cholesterol 171, Triglycerides 162.

May 2026: Fasting Glucose 88, A1C 5.1, Total Cholesterol 120, Triglycerides 87. With my baseline this optimized, adding Metformin to target insulin resistance would be redundant (buuut, in other cases the microdose of metformin + glp can help a looot).

She prescribed a low dose of an injectable (Mounjaro). Her logic is that my body just needs the right pharmacological "push" to wake up the fat-loss process that got locked up by my past cortisol/antidepressant issues. As the adipose tissue shrinks thanks to the medication, the insulin resistance will naturally resolve itself along the way.

Thanks again to everyone who shared their opinions, it's definitely an interesting topic to talk about Really excited to finally start this next phase!

**Even tho mounjaro was prescribed, I feeeeeeeel that maaaaaybe I will give Reta a try hehe

 

[tubby]

Sounds to me like your doctor made the right call on that one (obviously I'm going to say that since it was my position too ).

To correct a couple of things:

HOMA-IR is not a definitive diagnostic tool: [...] clinical, systemic insulin resistance [...] actual diagnostic "gold standard" (the euglycemic clamp).

The euglycemic clamp is a red herring. That lab is never realistically getting ordered for you unless you find yourself participating in a clinical study someday. She's trying to sidestep having to explain to you that she lacks a protocol from a major medical association to act on a "bad" HOMA-IR score. Contrary to what House MD may lead people to believe, most PCPs aren't in the business of "winging it," when it comes to medical care.

She looked at my whole picture: clean liver/the abdominal ultrasound where everything was okay/healthy, normal A1C, optimal lipids, and fasting glucose of 88. She told me sth like my isolated high HOMA-IR is basically just a reflection of the "extra effort" my body has to make to handle glucose through my current volume of adipose tissue, not a systemic failure of my organs. I am actually metabolically healthy.

She acknowledges that you're concerned by the result, but the American Diabetes Association (or whatever the equivalent in Chile is) hasn't yet transitions to an approach where insulin resistance is proactively treated based on fasted insulin or HOMA-IR scores. And financial considerations of major donors make it unlikely the ADA would really want to do that. She's not going to wing it, but that's okay because she knows her overall treatment decision (Mounjaro) will resolve your concern anyway so it's kind of a moot point. She's proactively trying to avoid you obsessively tracking HOMA-IR instead of her preferred clinical markers to minimize the need to have to redirect you in the future.

I originally "considered" (I was just curious) Metformin strictly to heal the insulin resistance, not for weight loss . However, she explained it simply isn't necessary in my case because I don't have a fatty liver or other typical clinical markers to diagnose systemic IR. My body already responded beautifully (her words lol) to my lifestyle changes and supplements (Berberine + Inositol), and the proof is in my labs:

There's no such thing as "healing" insulin resistance (just as you can't "heal" obesity), but there is such a thing as reducing it. Since you mentioned berberine she's probably recognizing that you're already taking something very metformin-like and stacking metformin on top of that is going to be overkill for your present situation.

Nice work on those labs so far, by the way!

 

[HereKittyKitty]

Having taken Metformin for nearly 2 years, be aware it can cause significant gastric distress. I lost 65# while taking it as a result of chronic nausea.