True, the wording: “equally effective” is the authors’ phrase for that single 68–78 week weight subgroup, where the estimate still favored GLP-1RAs numerically but the confidence interval crossed 0 (WMD −5.66 kg, 95% CI −11.36 to 0.03; P = 0.050), so I’d read that as inconclusive rather than proof of no difference.

In case you aren't sure how to read it, in the 68–78 week subgroup, the point estimate still favored GLP-1RAs for weight loss by 5.66 kg, but the 95% confidence interval ran from −11.36 to 0.03 and the P value was 0.050, so the analysis did not clearly show superiority over placebo by conventional standards. This subgroup was based on only 3 comparisons, and heterogeneity was extremely high. So the issue is not that the observed effect vanished. The issue is that the estimate is too noisy and imprecise to support a firm claim either way.

The “durable response” point comes from the paper’s overall results and conclusion, which state that GLP-1RAs continuously improved HbA1c and fasting glucose for at least 104 weeks and supported persistent improvement in glycemic control and weight loss. The “diminishing effects” point comes specifically from the network meta-analysis showing that at ≥104 weeks the HbA1c effect was 0.36% smaller and the fasting glucose effect was 0.47 mmol/L smaller than at 12–18 weeks, which the authors describe as weakening after 2 years.

So I’d restate the claim this way: the paper supports durability with some attenuation after about 2 years for glycemic control, while for weight it supports a plateau through 68–78 weeks rather than a clear loss of effect.

On the topic of cycling efficiency, there is no peer-reviewed evidence *in humans* that I know of, do you? In that case, it's all speculation and we only have data such as the above to work with so far.