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

191–200 of 394 posts

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

#191

Post by badosu »

cma wrote: post #180
JohnMakin wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea what you're replying to is just pure fat-logic that isn't really backed by science. You will lose muscle from calorie restriction - that isn't really in doubt by anyone. However, when cutting weight, you can do a routine that maintains/builds muscle as you cut, to reduce the effect. A body with more lean muscle mass will be able to keep weight off for longer - this has been known, settled, and accepted in weight…

Don't you also need a bigger heart when you gain weight and not need as big of one at less weight? Liposuction and amputations can also result in muscle loss in the heart from it having less work to do.

You don't want to have too much hypertrophy in the heart for sure. My understanding though is that it's very hard (almost impossible?) for it to be a problem without exogenous hormones, or some other condition that allows you to accrue an abnormal amount of muscle mass (e.g. myostatin defficiency).

Edit: I mean someone with a healthy fat percentage body composition. Of course having to pump blood to a 300lb-140kg body is problematic for the heart, be it a mostly fat or mostly muscle body composition. My point is it's just much easier to be fat enough for it to be a problem than muscular enough without exogenous hormones or an abnormal condition.

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

#192

Post by nine_k »

thayne wrote: post #185

Since it is naturally occurring, it isn't patentable. Which means it is less likely that companies will develop a commercial product from it. Why pay to get FDA approval, if you don't get a government granted monopoly on it afterwards? This is one problem with using patents as the mechanism to incentivise development of medicine.

If the molecule itself is not patentable, the process of efficient extraction or synthesis may be. So, if somebody can come up with it, they may have a thriving business.

The substance in question is a peptide. It's not something you simply extract from a plant using a solvent. OTOH, being a peptide, it's likely easy enough to produce in a genetically engineered bacterium or yeast. Efficient extraction may remain a problem though, because you'll need to select a particular protein fragment (the peptide) from reams of other protein fragments of the bacterial / fungal cells you process.

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

#193

Post by aaronblohowiak »

wincy wrote: post #64
lores wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drug does not directly affect muscle mass (unless you are already very lean), but heavy people are doing resistance training against their own body weight all the time, so they are strong in the absolute, even if not relatively. Weigh less and your muscles have it easier, so weaken, unless you keep them strong with exercise.

I’m not sure that’s exactly what’s happening with GLP-1 drugs. I lost 40 pounds very quickly on them and hurt my hip then my shoulder then my wrist. Felt like I was constantly getting muscle strains and random injuries. I started drinking a protein shake once a day and the random mysterious injuries stopped.

the caloric restriction that these drugs engender can indeed lead to various forms of under-nourishment. as you point out, your protein needs (as a proportion of calorie sources) go UP when you are in caloric restriction; see PSMF.

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

#194

Post by badc0ffee »

mkoubaa wrote: post #15
thom wrote: post #7

Delighted to discover this kind of breakthrough is based on a gnarly regular expression: https://github.com/Svensson-Lab/pro-hormone-predictor/blob/m...

Beautiful yet terrifying. I'm glad that regex isn't something I'll ever have to touch.

I'm comfortable with it (having previously been paid to write Perl for several years), but what I don't like is how many other people I have worked with aren't, and just blindly paste in (totally incorrect) regexes from Stack Overflow.

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

#195

Post by aaronblohowiak »

coffeecantcode wrote: post #103
lores wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, muscle is only used when fat reserves are depleted or you don't eat enough protein for the brain's personal amino acid supply. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this, though, maybe an expert can weigh in.

Not an expert, but from my own research muscle will always atrophy to its functionally base necessary mass, there are of course genetics involved in muscle mass retention as well that can’t be overlooked. But you can be in a caloric deficit and your body is burning fat(which often times this leads to lower energy and less intense resistance training) while still losing muscle mass. I don’t believe they’re mutually ex…

>1) compared with persons with normal weight, those with obesity have more muscle mass but poor muscle quality; 2) diet-induced weight loss reduces muscle mass without adversely affecting muscle strength; 3) weight loss improves global physical function, most likely because of reduced fat mass; 4) high protein intake helps preserve lean body and muscle mass during weight loss but does not improve muscle strength and could have adverse effects on metabolic function; 5) both endurance- and resistance-type exercise help preserve muscle mass during weight loss, and resistance-type exercise also improves muscle strength. We therefore conclude that weight-loss therapy, including a hypocaloric diet with adequate (but not excessive) protein intake and increased physical activity (particularly resistance-type exercise), should be promoted to maintain muscle mass and improve muscle strength and physical function in persons with obesity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5421125/

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

#196

Post by sunrunner »

thom wrote: post #7

Delighted to discover this kind of breakthrough is based on a gnarly regular expression: https://github.com/Svensson-Lab/pro-hormone-predictor/blob/m...

Neat. I always thought Advent of Code 2015's Day 19 (Medicine for Rudolph) was just an exercise in parsing and validation of production rules against a grammar, and any use of regex in that puzzle solution was purely coincidental ;)

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

#197

Post by catigula »

thayne wrote: post #185

Since it is naturally occurring, it isn't patentable. Which means it is less likely that companies will develop a commercial product from it. Why pay to get FDA approval, if you don't get a government granted monopoly on it afterwards? This is one problem with using patents as the mechanism to incentivise development of medicine.

I've always been very, very skeptical of this claim.

If there's an actual natural, identified substance with huge benefits to people, it's going to go gangbusters and you're going to make a lot, LOT of money selling it, even if you're doing it via roadside lemonade stand.

It feels like this claim is usually used to promote cures and treatments with extremely low quality RCTs backing their use as a sort of panacea.

I used to believe the "just do shrooms to cure depression" claims on principle until I looked into the quality of those studies, which is very low. At that point, you're just making stuff up.

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

#198

Post by eightysixfour »

thayne wrote: post #185

Since it is naturally occurring, it isn't patentable. Which means it is less likely that companies will develop a commercial product from it. Why pay to get FDA approval, if you don't get a government granted monopoly on it afterwards? This is one problem with using patents as the mechanism to incentivise development of medicine.

Other mentioned extraction and such, but semaglutide had been known for some time, the other half of the problem is delivery. You’ll notice the article says the calorie intake was decreased an hour later. You need to make it stable, long lasting, and via a delivery method that people can tolerate.

Giving yourself an injection an hour before you eat or an hour before you are hungry isn’t going to work.

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

#199

Post by nerdponx »

thayne wrote: post #185

Since it is naturally occurring, it isn't patentable. Which means it is less likely that companies will develop a commercial product from it. Why pay to get FDA approval, if you don't get a government granted monopoly on it afterwards? This is one problem with using patents as the mechanism to incentivise development of medicine.

If only there was a way for the people to pool their collective resources, maybe each contributing a fraction of their annual income (with a greater contribution proportion at higher incomes), and put those resources towards development of thins that benefit the common good but lack a direct profit incentive. Hmm...

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

#200

Post by timbit42 »

chasd00 wrote: post #26
boxed wrote: post #5

Isn't the molecule in Ozempic naturally occurring too?

Isn’t everything naturally occurring? It all originates from earth, where else would it come from?

"The unnatural, that too is natural." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
Post reply on HN