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

241–250 of 394 posts

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

#241

Post by sporkland »

vlovich123 wrote: post #179
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...

> The study would not have been possible without the use of artificial intelligence to weed through dozens of proteins in a class called prohormones. I see we’re being fast and loose with the term “artificial intelligence”?

It is a somewhat though provoking question for me where you LLM's fall in automata theory? Are they non-deterministic finite automatons which would make regex's a cousin? Or does it require pushdown automata levels of capability?

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

#242

Post by sn9 »

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…

The reason you want to keep all your muscle on a cut is because that means a higher proportion of the weight that you do lose will be fat tissue.

This is the strictly superior outcome.

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

#243

Post by sn9 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #220
naasking wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you're not using exogenous hormones, muscle mass can only be achieved with exercise that builds or preserves muscle. I'd say that's a pretty good predictor against frailty, which is strongly associated with mortality among the elderly.

Exactly my point! you have a chain of 3 associations right there. One is nearly tautological and another has backwards causality. Correlation =/= causation. Something being a good a good predicative indicator does not mean it is an effective intervention.

"Muscle" isn't an intervention.

"Building muscle" is an intervention and has extremely well-documented mechanisms that have a causal role in improving health.

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

#244

Post by 999900000999 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #222
999900000999 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are overweight. Our entire food chain is full of preservatives, carcinogens, and things that should not be consumed by living beings . I've spent small amounts of time in Europe, and each time literally just eating whatever junk food I wanted, I came home losing 10 or 20 pounds. The food outside of the US is just fundamentally better. Let's say you're a teenager and you want to buy yourself some soda, in Am…

This is the truth - and it’s infuriating that assholes like RFK purport to want to remove nasty stuff from our food supply, but outside of total meme shit like a few red dyes and fake nonsense about seed oils being uniquely bad, he’s doing nothing to fix our insanely low quality and under regulated food supply. I have had exactly the same experience as you every time I travel outside of the USA (luckily I’m already i…

I think there's just too much money in the way things are set up .

And that goes for almost everything in the United States. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say food created using natural ingredients is probably better for you than something that came out of a lab. In the name of extending shelf life, everything is just saturated with as many preservatives as possible.

While this is great for something like emergency rations you shouldn't eat this stuff every day.

It's all about maximum profit. They sell us food that's optimized to remain sellable later.

Then this food makes you sick and depressed, so they sell you a bunch of drugs to "treat" that. The goal isn't healthy happy people. It's all about return customers.

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

#245

Post by catigula »

throwup238 wrote: post #240
robbs wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why was caffeine studied? Why does it continue to be studied?

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

#246

Post by Centigonal »

throwup238 wrote: post #240
robbs wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the current regulatory regime in many US states allows companies to make a killing off of selling naturally occurring bioactive substances as dietary supplements with few regulatory hurdles.

Kratom, CBD, and delta-8 THC are naturally occurring bioactive substances that are newer to the US market. Both have carved out a pretty nice economic niche with a bunch of claimed health benefits.

A couple of years back, I saw a sign outside a fancy legal highs shop in Fishtown, Philadelphia touting the benefits of kratom as a pre-workout supplement. The insanity that a business was advertising an addictive opioid to healthy, opioid-naive people for better gains in the gym almost makes me want more regulation in this area.

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

#247

Post by naasking »

consteval wrote: post #209
naasking wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Losing muscle as you lose weight is natural and good. It's natural but that doesn't make it good. In particular, muscle loss can cause heart problems because the heart is a muscle. The body's catabolic processes don't distinguish between different kinds of muscle.

I don’t think this is true. My understanding is that the heart is a very unique muscle because it doesn’t grow. If your heart does grow, either by genetic defect or anabolic abuse, it works much worse. So you’ll live a shorter life.

Heart muscle can shrink in extreme calorie deficits which can lead to heart issues, therefore it must grow when leaving such calorie deficits, even if that growth has an upper bound.

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

#248

Post by sn9 »

crazygringo wrote: post #133
ch4s3 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the downside is that you don't just lose muscle in your legs and core, but rather you lose muscle mass all over. Yes, this is the expected result of calorie restriction but the issue is that when people lose a lot of weight without taking action to build and maintain muscle the amount of muscle loss they experience can cause other problems. Someone relying on a GLP-1 drug is often someone who isn't very activ…

> but rather you lose muscle mass all over. Well, you lose weight all over. You lose fat in your arms and your shoulders don't need to be quite as strong. You lose weight on your face and your neck muscles don't need to be quite as strong. You lose more in your legs, but you're supposed to lose muscle mass all over. > Someone relying on a GLP-1 drug is often someone who isn't very active at all. Sure, but that's a co…

Spot reduction of fat is a myth.

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

#249

Post by naasking »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #220
naasking wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you're not using exogenous hormones, muscle mass can only be achieved with exercise that builds or preserves muscle. I'd say that's a pretty good predictor against frailty, which is strongly associated with mortality among the elderly.

Exactly my point! you have a chain of 3 associations right there. One is nearly tautological and another has backwards causality. Correlation =/= causation. Something being a good a good predicative indicator does not mean it is an effective intervention.

There is no backwards causality in the implication that building or preserving muscle that would otherwise be lost can prevent or delay frailty, nor is it backwards to imply that frailty can lead to death (from falls, disease, etc.). I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

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

#250

Post by sn9 »

consteval wrote: post #209
naasking wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Losing muscle as you lose weight is natural and good. It's natural but that doesn't make it good. In particular, muscle loss can cause heart problems because the heart is a muscle. The body's catabolic processes don't distinguish between different kinds of muscle.

I don’t think this is true. My understanding is that the heart is a very unique muscle because it doesn’t grow. If your heart does grow, either by genetic defect or anabolic abuse, it works much worse. So you’ll live a shorter life.

Hypertrophy of the heart is a well-known and desired part of improving cardiovascular fitness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobic_exercise#Health_effect...

Post reply on HN