Talk:Glucagon
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Glucagon. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Energy-expenditure figure
"3–8%" for resting energy expenditure is doing a lot of work and is sourced to early-phase studies with small numbers. Can we say how it was measured? Indirect calorimetry over what period? — PlainNumbersPip (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The published figures come from short indirect-calorimetry sessions, and the article now says "figures in the region of" rather than stating a range as established. I agree it is weak evidence and the wording should stay hedged. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Fibrillation paragraph belongs here or at aggregation?Resolved
The formulation section drifts into general advice about reconstituted solutions. That is Peptide aggregation and Reconstitution of lyophilised peptides territory. — StabilityStig (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Trimmed to one sentence of general application with links out, keeping the glucagon-specific history. Glucagon is the clearest worked example of the problem so a short generalisation earns its place. ✓ Done — LyophilLena (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
GIP and glucagon secretion — contradiction with the GIP article?Done
This article says GIP stimulates glucagon secretion at euglycaemia. Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide does not mention it. One of the two should be brought into line. — GIP_Genoveva (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Both are correct as far as they go; the GIP article simply does not cover alpha-cell effects. I have flagged it there rather than removing anything here. — IncretinIvo (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, that is the better fix. ✓ Done — GIP_Genoveva (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)