Schmidt et al present results from a secondary outcome analysis from the Lira Pump Trial regarding body composition and diet.

The underlying study is a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study; the results may therefore be considered valid and of high quality.

The authors found that, in overweight type 1 diabetes patients, liraglutide, compared with placebo, reduced body lean and fat mass and added sugar intake. The statistical analyses are performed and presented clearly and well-understandable.

It should be considered, that another study of overweight type 1 diabetes (Ghanim H, Batra M, Green K, et al. Liraglutide treatment in overweight and obese patients with type 1 diabetes: A 26-week randomized controlled trial; mechanisms of weight loss. Diabetes, Obes Metab. 2020;22(10):1742-1752.) with a slightly bigger cohort has been published previously, and also showed reduction of body weight, however, mainly by reduction of fat tissue and no change of lean tissue; the authors discuss the differences between the two studies as potential reasons for the different findings regarding lean tissue mass (Discussion, line 271 ff.).

It could be of potential benefit and interest to investigate body composition using a different method (e.g. bioimpedance measurement) in further studies.

I have the following minor comments:

• It would be helpful to include information on the investigated cohort in the manuscript title, e.g.: Liraglutide changes body composition and lowers added sugar intake in overweight patients with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes” (to prevent miss-interpretation of the data for treatment of normal-weight type 1 diabetes). I see that, compared to other studies, Your cohort was less obese (BMI 33 vs. 30 kg/m²) but still overweight.

• I think it is an interesting point that the amount of daily energy intake was associated with the amount of weight loss (Results, line 143/144); could you further present this results (e.g. in a figure, seeing your manuscript has only 2 figures but 4 tables already)?

• Discussion, line 302: the word “in” is doubled.

My former comments have been answered.