Listen to this article. Choose between:

You’re sitting across from a friend over coffee when he turns his phone toward you. He’s been reading about the “latest peptides” for losing weight, and this one apparently works on three hormones. You remember hearing about a drug that worked on two, although neither of you is quite sure what the extra one is supposed to do. Your friend thinks it makes the treatment stronger, but when you ask what “stronger” means, he scrolls back through the story looking for an explanation. Then you mention something else you’ve heard: people can lose muscle along with the weight. He’s heard that too, but he doesn’t know whether it happens because they’re eating less, because of something the drug does, or whether the newer versions are any different. Between the unfamiliar names and the promising results, you’re left trying to work out what has actually changed and what that change might mean for your health.

Retatrutide is the drug at the center of that three-hormone conversation. It’s still being studied and hasn’t been approved for public use. What makes it different is that one molecule can act through three hormone systems: GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon. The progression from one target to two and now three can sound like a simple upgrade. But adding another target changes the kinds of effects researchers can explore. Glucagon brings the liver’s handling of nutrients and the body’s use of energy more fully into the picture. To understand why that might help, we need to know what these hormones normally do, and how their effects fit together. We also need to keep your friend’s muscle question in view. After 50, a treatment’s value involves more than how much weight it takes off.

Let’s start with lunch. As food reaches your intestine, hormones released there help the rest of your body respond to the incoming nutrients. Two of those hormones are GLP-1 and GIP. Both help the pancreas release insulin when blood glucose is elevated. Glucose is the sugar carried in your blood, and insulin helps control how it’s used and stored. So, alongside the work of digesting food, your gut takes part in managing what happens to it afterward. You may see GLP-1 and GIP called “incretins.” That’s the name for this link between food arriving in the gut and increased insulin release.

The words “when blood glucose is elevated” are doing some useful work here. These hormones don’t produce the same insulin response in every situation. Their effects depend on the glucose level at the time. That makes more sense than picturing a hormone as a switch that produces one fixed result whenever it’s turned on. And although GLP-1 and GIP share this role, they aren’t interchangeable. GIP can also increase the release of glucagon under some conditions. Even our first two hormones have effects that don’t fit neatly into a single job description.

A drug acts through these systems by activating their receptors, the structures on cells through which the hormone signals take effect. You’ll often see such a drug called a “receptor agonist.” In plain language, an agonist activates a receptor. That term tells you where the drug acts; it doesn’t mean the drug recreates everything that happens after an ordinary meal. The body’s own hormones and a medicine designed to act through their receptors need to be kept distinct, even when the same hormone names appear in the explanation.

The move from a GLP-1 receptor agonist to a drug that also activates GIP receptors gave researchers another set of effects to work with. Adding glucagon takes that approach a step further. It’s reasonable to ask why they wouldn’t simply keep increasing GLP-1 activity instead. The answer begins with the different work glucagon does. A stronger effect through one receptor can’t be assumed to reproduce the effects of acting through another. To see what the third target might contribute, we have to give glucagon a fuller introduction than the one it usually gets.

You may remember insulin and glucagon as a pair of opposites: insulin brings blood sugar down, while glucagon brings it up. Both come from the pancreas, though different cells produce them. Insulin helps lower blood glucose. Glucagon increases the amount of glucose the liver releases into the blood. That familiar up-and-down explanation is a useful place to start, especially when you think about the hours between meals. Once glucose is no longer arriving from recently eaten food, the liver helps keep it available for the brain and other tissues that need it.

In that setting, raising blood glucose is part of keeping the supply steady. The same effect can become a problem when the liver releases more glucose than is needed. So we have to consider the circumstances before deciding what a hormone’s action means for health. “Raises blood sugar” describes a real effect of glucagon, but it doesn’t tell us whether that effect is helpful or harmful in every situation. Nor does it tell us everything else the hormone does. That’s where the simple picture of two opposing hormones starts to leave things out.

Think of a meal containing fish, vegetables, and rice. There’s protein and fat to deal with as well as carbohydrate. Insulin and glucagon both take part in handling nutrients, and both can be active after a meal containing protein. That may sound odd if you’ve learned to think of one as undoing the other. It becomes easier to understand when you remember that blood glucose is only one part of what’s happening. The liver is also processing other materials arriving from the meal, and glucagon has a role in that work.

Protein, for example, is broken down into amino acids. Your body uses these to make its own proteins, but amino acids can also be broken down. That creates a need to handle the nitrogen they contain. The liver converts nitrogen into urea as part of getting rid of it, and experimental research, including work with human liver cells, shows that glucagon helps regulate this process. You don’t need to remember the chemistry. The useful point is that glucagon helps the liver process the protein components of food as well as maintain glucose supply. That finding alone doesn’t tell us whether someone taking retatrutide will lose muscle.

Glucagon also affects how the liver uses fatty acids as fuel, and researchers are interested in its effects on energy expenditure. That means the energy the body uses to carry out its work, including when you’re resting. These actions help explain why the hormone attracts interest in obesity research. But it would be too big a leap to say that activating its receptor simply “burns calories” and therefore removes body fat. Using fatty acids in the liver, releasing fat from body stores, and losing body fat over time are different things. Evidence for one doesn’t automatically establish the others.

Now the apparent contradiction comes into focus. Why deliberately activate a receptor that can raise blood sugar in a drug being studied for obesity and diabetes? Researchers aren’t overlooking that effect. They’re exploring whether glucagon’s other actions can be useful when combined with signals that support glucose control. That’s a more interesting question than whether glucagon is a good hormone or a bad one. It asks what happens when several of its effects operate alongside the effects of GLP-1 and GIP, and whether the overall result is helpful in people.

An earlier experiment gives us a useful glimpse of the thinking. Researchers studied 10 adults with overweight or obesity who didn’t have diabetes. On separate occasions, the participants received short infusions of glucagon, GLP-1, both together, or placebo. Glucagon increased the energy they used at rest, but it also raised their blood glucose. When GLP-1 was given alongside it, the glucose rise was smaller while the increase in energy use remained. Combining the hormones changed the overall response in a way that made the idea worth investigating further.

Those infusions lasted only about 45 minutes, so this wasn’t evidence of what would happen during months of treatment. It also wasn’t a retatrutide trial. Its value was more specific: it showed in humans that one hormone’s unwanted effect could be reduced without necessarily removing another effect researchers hoped to study. That helps explain why adding glucagon needn’t be dismissed just because it can raise glucose. The outcome depends on the combination. Whether a particular drug can make that combination useful over time still needs to be tested separately.

Retatrutide brings three receptor activities into one engineered molecule. It can activate GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, which is why it’s called a triple hormone receptor agonist. It isn’t a mixture of three natural hormones. And it doesn’t act on a hormone called “GLP-3,” despite that nickname appearing online. The three refers to the number of receptor systems being targeted. Calling it a GIP/GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist is more cumbersome, but it tells you what the drug actually does. “GLP-3” leaves readers with the wrong picture of a newly numbered hormone.

Bringing the activities together also involves choices about how strongly the molecule acts at each receptor. They don’t have to be equal. In the laboratory tests used during its development, retatrutide showed greater activity at GIP receptors than at GLP-1 or glucagon receptors. That describes its behavior in those tests. It doesn’t tell us that GIP produces the largest share of a person’s weight loss. Laboratory activity and a clinical benefit are different measurements, and a percentage of one can’t be read as a percentage of the other.

When researchers talk about balancing the three activities, they’re trying to create a particular pattern of effects across the systems involved. They aren’t simply aiming to push every signal as hard as possible. And once the activities are built into one molecule, they don’t become three treatments that can each be adjusted separately for a patient. The design has to be judged by what the whole drug does. Animal experiments can help explore which pathways contribute to an effect, but findings in mice don’t divide up the benefits in humans. Three targets give researchers a different combination to test; the number alone doesn’t make it better than two.

The larger Phase 3 trials take us from a promising idea to what happened when people received the drug over time. They help answer whether weight and glucose changed, and what unwanted effects came with treatment. We don’t need to remember every trial name or result to understand the direction of the evidence. We do need to know who was studied, what the drug was compared with, and how long the study lasted. Those details keep a striking number attached to the people and circumstances that produced it, rather than turning it into a promise.

In one published trial, more than 2,300 adults with obesity and without diabetes received retatrutide or placebo for 80 weeks. At the 12-mg dose, average weight fell by 25 percent, compared with about 4 percent on placebo. A second 80-week trial studied more than 1,100 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Their average age was about 55, and just over half were men. At the same dose, average weight fell by about 19 percent, compared with about 5 percent on placebo. These estimates accounted for treatment interruptions and people stopping treatment; they weren’t simply results for those who stayed on the drug throughout.

Those are substantial average changes, but neither study compared retatrutide directly with a drug targeting two receptors. They can’t settle whether three targets are better than two. Nor can an average tell someone starting treatment how much weight he’ll lose. Unwanted effects belong in the same conversation. Gastrointestinal problems were the most common in both trials. In the diabetes trial, low blood pressure and altered skin sensation were also more frequent with retatrutide. Some people stopped treatment because of adverse effects. A useful account of the results has to include that experience alongside the weight change.

Glucose control gives us another way to judge the combination. In a separate 40-week trial of adults whose type 2 diabetes wasn’t adequately controlled with diet and exercise, retatrutide improved HbA1c more than placebo. HbA1c is a measure of blood glucose over time. So the whole drug improved glucose control even though one of its activities involved the glucagon receptor. That’s evidence that the combination can work in people. It doesn’t show that the other two activities exactly canceled out a separately measured glucagon effect. These trials were funded by Lilly, the drug’s developer.

There are also Phase 3 results announced by Lilly, including findings from a trial called TRIUMPH-3. A company announcement and a published trial paper give us different levels of detail to examine. The cardiovascular analyses in those announced results didn’t establish a heart-health benefit. And positive trial findings don’t themselves make a drug approved: retatrutide remains investigational. Taken together, the findings give us reasons to study this approach further. But they leave room for your friend’s other question. When that much weight comes off, what exactly is being lost, and what happens to the ability to move well?

Imagine being told you’ve lost weight, then hearing that some of it was “lean mass.” It’s easy to take that as another way of saying muscle. But a lean-mass measurement isn’t a separate measurement of skeletal muscle, and it doesn’t tell us how strong you are. Those distinctions matter when we’re thinking about life after 50. A change on a scan and a change in what you can physically do answer different questions. We need to keep both in view when deciding what weight loss means for someone’s health, rather than assuming the scale tells the whole story. You might care about carrying the groceries upstairs or getting up from a low chair. Those are questions about what you can do. A report about changes in tissue needs to be read alongside evidence about physical ability before we can connect the two confidently.

Retatrutide does have evidence about body composition, meaning what makes up the weight being measured. It comes from a smaller Phase 2 substudy in adults with type 2 diabetes, rather than the larger Phase 3 trials just discussed. Researchers used scans to assess changes over 36 weeks and found a reduction in body fat. They also assessed lean mass. The authors described the share of weight loss coming from lean mass as similar to that reported with other obesity treatments. That finding deserves attention, but it doesn’t demonstrate that the third target protects muscle.

There’s another reason to read “a similar share” carefully. If two people lose different amounts of total weight, the same proportion coming from lean mass can still mean different amounts of lean tissue lost. And this substudy wasn’t a direct test showing that retatrutide had the same muscle safety as semaglutide or tirzepatide. Its results help describe changes in body composition during treatment. They don’t settle what happens to strength and physical ability over longer periods, particularly in older people who may already have concerns about muscle. The smaller study’s findings also shouldn’t be treated as a muscle assessment of everyone in the Phase 3 trials.

A broader review of GLP-1-based treatments found that the comparative evidence about muscle was limited and uncertain. It also cautioned against treating a reduction in lean mass as proof of sarcopenia. Sarcopenia involves a loss of muscle strength and muscle mass or quality commonly associated with aging. That’s a more specific problem than a scan showing less lean tissue. The review couldn’t rule out clinically important muscle loss in susceptible people, so uncertainty isn’t a reason to brush the concern aside. It’s a reason to be precise about what has been measured and what still needs to be understood.

Glucagon’s role in processing amino acids doesn’t resolve the issue either. Knowing that it affects the liver’s handling of protein components doesn’t prove it protects muscle or causes extra muscle damage during treatment. Nor do the findings settle how much any tissue change comes from eating less, from the drug’s actions or from those influences working together. Your friend’s question is reasonable, and the answer remains incomplete. Adding a third target hasn’t removed the need to ask what weight loss means for muscle, strength, and day-to-day physical ability.

There’s a difference between finding that a treatment works and knowing exactly how it produced the result. The retatrutide trials compare the whole molecule with placebo. They don’t include a version with the glucagon activity removed, followed by another with the GIP activity removed. So they can’t tell us that a particular share of the weight loss came from each receptor. Even a direct comparison with another drug would compare two complete treatments, each with its own properties. It wouldn’t automatically isolate what one extra receptor contributed.

The energy question shows why this matters. The short infusion experiment found increased energy use at rest, with GLP-1 reducing glucagon’s accompanying glucose rise. Retatrutide’s development studies also linked glucagon receptor activity to extra energy expenditure in mice. Those findings help explain the interest in adding glucagon. They don’t tell us how large or lasting that effect is in people receiving retatrutide for months. Weight loss alone can’t reveal how much came from eating less, using more energy, or the interaction between them. Describing the drug as a calorie burner would give us a simpler explanation than the human evidence supports.

The same applies to the idea of getting the balance right. A useful result from one molecule doesn’t establish that its mix of receptor activities is the best possible mix. It doesn’t mean that more activity at every target would improve the result, or that the approach will suit every patient. Longer-term comparisons of benefits and unwanted effects remain relevant, including what happens to physical ability. We can take the observed results seriously while leaving those questions open. That’s how the evidence can move the discussion forward without giving us a complete explanation before one exists.

Back at the coffee table, you now have a clearer answer to what changed. The third target brings glucagon’s wider role in liver nutrient handling and energy use into the experiment. Its ability to raise glucose is a challenge to work with, alongside its other effects. GLP-1 and GIP provide activities that support glucose control, making it possible to investigate what the signals might achieve together. The progression from one target to two and then three describes a change in the approach to drug design, rather than a reliable ranking of which treatment will be best.

Researchers are increasingly trying to coordinate several metabolic signals at once. Retatrutide is one example, and it remains investigational. Its trial results give us evidence about the complete molecule’s effects, while leaving parts of the explanation unresolved. For someone thinking about health in the second half of life, the standard for judging it still reaches beyond the scale. What tissue was lost? Was strength preserved? What unwanted effects came with the change? Your friend’s interest in the latest drug and your concern about muscle belong in the same conversation. Understanding the science helps us have that conversation with better questions and fewer assumptions.

It emerges from how multiple systems interact and adapt over time, often in ways that aren’t obvious when viewed in isolation.

If you want a clearer way to think about that, I’ve outlined the systems perspective in a short guide you can download here:

The Midlife Health Reset — 10 core systems that shape strength, energy, and long-term health after 50.

Sources

Capozzi, M. E., D'Alessio, D. A., & Campbell, J. E. (2022). The past, present, and future physiology and pharmacology of glucagon. Cell Metabolism, 34(11), 1654–1674.

Coskun, T., Urva, S., Roell, W. C., Qu, H., Loghin, C., Moyers, J. S., O'Farrell, L. S., Briere, D. A., Sloop, K. W., Thomas, M. K., Pirro, V., Wainscott, D. B., Willard, F. S., Abernathy, M., Morford, L., Du, Y., Benson, C., Gimeno, R. E., Haupt, A., & Milicevic, Z. (2022). LY3437943, a novel triple glucagon, GIP, and GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control and weight loss: From discovery to clinical proof of concept. Cell Metabolism, 34(9), 1234–1247.e9.

Tan, T. M., Field, B. C. T., McCullough, K. A., Troke, R. C., Chambers, E. S., Salem, V., Gonzalez Maffe, J., Baynes, K. C. R., De Silva, A., Viardot, A., Alsafi, A., Frost, G. S., Ghatei, M. A., & Bloom, S. R. (2013). Coadministration of glucagon-like peptide-1 during glucagon infusion in humans results in increased energy expenditure and amelioration of hyperglycemia. Diabetes, 62(4), 1131–1138.

Winther-Sørensen, M., Galsgaard, K. D., Santos, A., Trammell, S. A. J., Sulek, K., Kuhre, R. E., Pedersen, J., Andersen, D. B., Hassing, A. S., Dall, M., Treebak, J. T., Gillum, M. P., Torekov, S. S., Windeløv, J. A., Hunt, J. E., Kjeldsen, S. A. S., Jepsen, S. L., Vasilopoulou, C. G., Knop, F. K., ... Wewer Albrechtsen, N. J. (2020). Glucagon acutely regulates hepatic amino acid catabolism and the effect may be disturbed by steatosis. Molecular Metabolism, 42, Article 101080.

Jastreboff, A. M., Kaplan, L. M., Davies, M. J., Wilding, J. P. H., Ahmad, N. N., Murray, M., Du, Y., Makarova, N., Giblin, K., Schloot, N. C., & Wang, Y. (2026). Retatrutide, a triple hormone receptor agonist, for treatment of obesity. The New England Journal of Medicine. Advance online publication.

Bellido, V., le Roux, C. W., Ekinci, E. I., Bjornstad, P., Frias, J. P., Giblin, K., Eyde, S., Park, S. Y., Ferro, J., Johnson, C., & Taylor, A. (2026). Retatrutide in adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (TRIUMPH-2): A double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet, 408(10563), 1455–1472.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). FDA's concerns with unapproved GLP-1 drugs used for weight loss.

Coskun, T., Wu, Q., Schloot, N. C., Haupt, A., Milicevic, Z., Khouli, C., & Harris, C. (2025). Effects of retatrutide on body composition in people with type 2 diabetes: A substudy of a phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 13(8), 674–684.

Menezes, M. L. L., Chiappa, M. E. G., Kloss, R. F., Tuesta, M., Santos, P., Sá Filho, A. S., & Chiappa, G. R. (2026). Body composition remodelling during GLP-1-based therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis using a hierarchical physiological framework. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 28(11), 9849–9860.