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

Post by sn9 » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 6:29 PM UTC

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.

Post by sn9 » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 6:31 PM UTC

guestbest wrote: post #149

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.

Any calorie deficit of 500 under BMR and the body will not just consume the fat stores but also muscle. That’s what I learned on the bodybuilding forums at least. Some people went too high on the deficit and ended up losing some muscle definition

Post by throwup238 » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 6:33 PM UTC

catigula wrote: post #245

throwup238 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by anotherpaul » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 6:35 PM UTC

raylad wrote: post #188

This is the press release that is being republished with ads in the post link https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/03/ozempic-rival...

Post by tokai » Fri, Mar 07, 2025, 6:39 PM UTC

catigula wrote: post #197

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…