Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 394 posts

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

#161

Post by BSOhealth »

crazygringo wrote: post #116
aitchnyu wrote: post #24

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

It's nearly always a side effect of weight loss, and it's a good thing. It's confusing how people act like it's bad. If you're obese, your legs are enormously strong with crazy amounts of muscle. Have you ever seen someone obese do leg presses at the gym? They can handle tons of weight. When you lose weight, you don't need all that extra muscle . If you're carrying around 180 lbs instead of 300 lbs on your frame, all…

My read on past studies is that one area of muscle mass loss that is problematic is around the heart.

Obviously it’s not a problem if an obese person’s quads shrinks 2x because they lift 2x weight every day.

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

#162

Post by JKCalhoun »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #73
JKCalhoun wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can be chill about it. For someone on the sidelines, mildly interested in the topic, an AI summary of the regex might be useful — and the person getting downvotes is saving some of us the time.

Yes, it might be misinformation, but it's convenient misinformation, is that the idea? And yes, it's true that a source like wikipedia could be too, but that has to withstand scrutiny to remain on the site, no such checks or balances in AI.

Convenient misinformation? Well that's one way to put way too fine a point on it.

That or I must be a lot more LLM-accepting than most of HN.

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

#163

Post by Procrastes »

DamnInteresting wrote: post #77

I wonder how this molecule will compare with gold nanoparticles [1]. Headline: Gold outperforms common weight loss drugs – and leaves muscles alone [1] https://newatlas.com/disease/obesity/gold-nanoparticles-obes...

> and leaves muscles alone

But might destroy your bone marrow's ability to create blood cells[1].

1. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/aplastic-anem...

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

#164

Post by poidos »

Aurornis wrote: post #70
jleyank wrote: post #36

Remember, weight loss is a side effect of the Ozempic family of drugs. It was intended as a type 2 diabetes drug and it’s quite successful in that area. Once alternate applications are revealed, drug design gets involved to develop alternatives. Medchemists and marketeers are clever…

> weight loss is a side effect of the Ozempic family of drugs. It was intended as a type 2 diabetes drug and it’s quite successful in that area. You can’t call it a side effect simply because the drug was first studied for a different condition. Weight loss is a primary effect of the drug and it’s the indication it was approved for after extensive research. Many drugs are first discovered while looking for some other…

Viagra is a famous example.

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

#165

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #142
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.

“In nature” means “it would not happen if humans weren’t around”. So no, nature isn’t “everything that happens”. Calcium and californium atoms smashing together to form oganesson would never happen “in nature” without humans using a particle accelerator to drive the process.

I strongly suspect some supernova or black hole jet somewhere has formed oganesson without human intervention. "In nature" usually gets restricted to "on Earth" implicitly, partly for this reason.

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

#166

Post by n4r9 »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #142
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.

“In nature” means “it would not happen if humans weren’t around”. So no, nature isn’t “everything that happens”. Calcium and californium atoms smashing together to form oganesson would never happen “in nature” without humans using a particle accelerator to drive the process.

Is wheat natural? Aren't humans themselves part of nature?

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

#167

Post by Retric »

mikenew wrote: post #153
freedomben wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

I understand the point. Mine is that an ordinary untrained person will see health benefits and a statistically longer life from more muscle. An overweight person would have more muscle than their non-overweight counterparts (mostly localized to the legs, not upper body), and that is the one and only positive of being overweight. Willfully throwing that away will harm your health, full stop. The muscle loss problem wi…

There’s negative cardiovascular effects from excess muscle just as with excess fat.

Normally that’s offset by the health effects of the exercise required to gain and maintain them as well as the lack of medical conditions that prevent exercise etc. But a fat person losing weight should inherently lose muscle mass long term assuming no changes to lifestyle.

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

#168

Post by ge96 »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #150
ge96 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that an anti-pattern to put the comment inside the function vs above

Function documentation goes inside functions in Python, explicitly making them self-documenting. That can then be automatically picked up by any other code (like tooling for automatically generating API documentation) formalized as PEP 257, https://peps.python.org/pep-0257 Python will literally assign the content of your docstring (a triple-quoted string at the start of a function) to a special double underscored ("d…

interesting TIL too bad we don't have auto doc gen (fastapi what I'm working with atm)

edit: not saying it can't be done but our org isn't using auto docs

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

#169

Post by hombre_fatal »

n4r9 wrote: post #155
freedomben wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

> then they have "too much muscle" as typically needed for their body mass It's a leap to suggest that it's "good" to lose this muscle mass. If you're obese then it's good to lose fat. It's even better to do so while maintaining muscle mass.

Yeah, but whether you do resistance training while losing weight so that you have proportionally extra muscle mass than you had when you were overweight has nothing to do with the GLP-1 drug.

Every time GLP-1 drugs come up, the convo splinters off into topics that have nothing to do with anything unique to the drug. Now we're just talking about general weight loss and that it's good to exercise. Which is a trivial claim.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

mikenew wrote: post #153
freedomben wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

I understand the point. Mine is that an ordinary untrained person will see health benefits and a statistically longer life from more muscle. An overweight person would have more muscle than their non-overweight counterparts (mostly localized to the legs, not upper body), and that is the one and only positive of being overweight. Willfully throwing that away will harm your health, full stop. The muscle loss problem wi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN