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

231–240 of 394 posts

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

#231

Post by im3w1l »

lores wrote: post #92
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the mechanism. A caloric deficit causes your system to metabolize whatever it can. It likes fat because that's energy dense, but muscle is also a good source of energy as well, and the more rapid the weight loss, the more body mass it has to burn.

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.

The body needs protein to function (the body is partially built out of protein, and also proteins perform many important functions in the body), and it cannot be synthesized from fat or carbs. The body also has no store of protein. This means that outside of dietary protein, breaking down muscles is the only option.

Secondary to that, the body needs some amount of glucose. The best option for that is stored glycogen. When those stores run out the body can enter ketosis which reduces but does not eliminate the need for glucose. Fat consists of three fatty acids joined by a glycerol part. Most of the energy is in the fatty acids, but the glycerol can serve as a limited supply of glucose. However that is not really sufficient, so to get more glucose, and the other option is breaking down protein.

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

#232

Post by qingcharles »

joseda-hg wrote: post #123
jasonjayr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the list of disasters, they forgot "parsing html": https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...

Huh, I tried sharing the Zalgo answer here, but it didn't quite work, never knew HN wouldn't render those kinds of characters

It did, but I kinda went over the top with it once and dang had to tell me off, so it might be they added filtering.

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

#233

Post by jleyank »

poidos wrote: post #164
Aurornis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As I said, marketeers are clever…. And physicians can prescribe for anything they’d like - pharma is restricted to approvals before advertising.

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

#234

Post by olalonde »

im3w1l wrote: post #223
olalonde wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single protein shake typically provides around 22g of protein, which is a small portion of the recommended daily intake for maintaining muscle, generally close to 1g of protein per pound of body weight. As an example, I'm currently on a weight loss diet and have a 180g of proteins target per day. Unless you were significantly under-consuming protein, it's unlikely that the shake alone made a major difference.

Such high recommendations are for people that want to maximize muscle retention / growth not people that just want to be healthy. You can get by on much less.

Right but even on the low end of recommended daily protein intake, 22g would probably still be a small fraction.

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

#235

Post by jleyank »

derektank wrote: post #106
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…

That's not quite right. The clinical indication for Wegovy (and Zepbound for that matter) is, "As an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adult patients with an initial BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater (obesity)". Obesity itself is the disease the drug is approved to treat. Now, Wegovy has the same active ingredient as Ozempic (Semaglutide), ditto for Zepbound a…

Different indications and approval to market. Different names for, umm, clarity in the marketplace. Same generic if/when they’re released. I would think this would be way easier than biologics as it’s not that big.

As I said above, they ran it through some amount of clinical trials and got approval to mention it directly. Same drug matter, possibly the same formulations.

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

#236

Post by JohnMakin »

crazygringo wrote: post #228
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…

> Yea what you're replying to is just pure fat-logic I can't even imagine what that's supposed to mean. > However, when cutting weight, you can do a routine that maintains/builds muscle as you cut, to reduce the effect. I literally talked about staying physically active. The point is, you're going to have however much muscle your workouts and physical activity build/maintain . And you're going to lose whatever extra…

> I can't even imagine what that's supposed to mean.

Where are you getting your information from?

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

#238

Post by catigula »

jaredklewis wrote: post #230
catigula wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right, but there is a free rider problem. Why should a company spend $100 million doing clinical trials to get FDA approval if once it is approved, all other companies can sell it, even though they didn't pay anything? Even if every actor in the market thinks there will be a good return on investment if they get FDA approval, there is a strong incentive to instead wait for someone else to do it and free ride on them.…

CBD, which doesn't appear to have a fraction of the therapeutic efficacy of something like Ozempic, is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry now with a lot of active research.

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

#239

Post by readthenotes1 »

ddalex wrote: post #183
cosmie wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be that they relied on AI to generate the gnarly regex ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Any sufficiently advanced regex is indistinguishable from AI.

I'm trying to think of a funny way to cite Clark's Law, but failing...

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

#240

Post by throwup238 »

robbs wrote: post #202
catigula wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Caffeine is an example. Coffee and energy drinks are doing well I'd say.

Caffeine is grandfathered in as a Generally Recognized as Safe food additive. If energy drink companies had to go through clinical trials with no patent protection for each drink formula, they wouldn't make them.
Post reply on HN