Natural occurring molecule rivals Ozempic in weight loss, sidesteps side effects

Post by dur-randir » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 4:04 PM UTC

aranchelk wrote: post #118

sumtechguy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to the syntax being used to make regex. It is borderline an assembly language level of making them. Better language tools would make it easier for people to grok. Basically instead of using chars like ?^()$ and the like lets use words people understand.

It’s not just the syntax. Regex isn’t directly composable (unless you just mash together strings). They cannot define nested structures, I.e. no recursion. They can’t maintain context. We don’t need better language tools. Better parsers can, and already have, been implemented in libraries. I’d have a look at parser combinators.

Post by mikenew » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 4:05 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #145

mikenew wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absurd. Muscle mass is a huge predictor of mortality and anyone who isn't actively strength training and maintaining higher levels of muscle would see a health benefit by doing so. The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. The side affect of muscle loss from these glp-1 agonist drugs is a serious downside that everyone should be aware of and try to mitigate if they choose to take t…

> The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. I think you've misunderstood GP. He's not saying they have too much muscle when they're overweight. He's saying that take that exact same amount of muscle, subtract a ton of fat from their upper bodies, then they have "too much muscle" as typically needed for their body mass. I don't agree with their phrasing, but the point isn't "nonsense."

Post by n4r9 » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #145

mikenew wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absurd. Muscle mass is a huge predictor of mortality and anyone who isn't actively strength training and maintaining higher levels of muscle would see a health benefit by doing so. The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. The side affect of muscle loss from these glp-1 agonist drugs is a serious downside that everyone should be aware of and try to mitigate if they choose to take t…

> The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. I think you've misunderstood GP. He's not saying they have too much muscle when they're overweight. He's saying that take that exact same amount of muscle, subtract a ton of fat from their upper bodies, then they have "too much muscle" as typically needed for their body mass. I don't agree with their phrasing, but the point isn't "nonsense."

Post by solumunus » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 4:09 PM UTC

pajamasam wrote: post #52

aitchnyu wrote: post #24

Is the muscle loss a side effect of the drug or of the weight loss?

According to this article, it's a side effect of Ozempic itself. The article goes on to say that the newly discovered molecule can side-step the side-effect and metnioned that "obese mice treated with daily injections of BRP for 14 days lost an average of 3 grams—due almost entirely to fat loss..."

Post by n4r9 » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 4:09 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #117

n4r9 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect chasd00 is making a pedantic point that the atoms are smashing together in nature. Because nature is just everything that happens. Although pedantic, it does challenge what we really mean when we say "natural". Just like what we mean when we say "chemicals". Everything is chemicals.

> Everything is chemicals. Free electrons and neutrons aren't chemicals. Free protons are Hydrogen ions though. With the exception of protons, isolated subatomic particle in general aren't chemicals.