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

271–280 of 394 posts

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

#271

Post by timewizard »

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…

> Have you ever seen someone obese do leg presses at the gym? They can handle tons of weight.

They can't handle reps. It's almost as if muscle has several different properties that are important beyond just "mass."

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

#272

Post by timewizard »

tromp wrote: post #3

If this really has the potential to compete with Ozempic, then it should have a noticeable impact on Novo Nordisk's stock value [1], but we're not seeing that yet. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NVO/

The market is intelligent in the aggregate. In particular this means it's slow to adapt to new information and trends.

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

#273

Post by sn9 »

crazygringo wrote: post #270
sn9 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're "cutting" as part of bulking and cutting, then obviously. But if you're going from obese to healthy, then your goal isn't to retain all your leg muscle, that's absurd. Your goal is to get to a healthy weight with overall balanced healthy muscle -- not disproportionately large legs. Nothing is "strictly superior". What is best depends on what your goals are. Bodybuilding and not being obese any more involve…

No this is absurd.

The goal for anyone obese is to lose as much fat as sustainably possible.

For any given rate of weight loss, losing a higher proportion of body fat is always better.

This notion of "balanced" healthy muscle is one you've made up that no one else thinks of. I've been on fitness forums for well over a decade and have literally never seen a single case of this.

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

#274

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

BSOhealth wrote: post #161
crazygringo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would think any drastic change to body composition would have its risks, and should be mitigated through healthy diet and exercise. I suspect the detractors are quick to overemphasize such risks because users of weight loss drugs aren't 'earning' it. My counterargument would be that it's better to be underexercised and normal weight than to be underexercised and overweight. And I suspect being normal weight makes exercise more pleasant.

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

#275

Post by Izkata »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #239
ddalex wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any sufficiently advanced regex is indistinguishable from AI.

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

Regexes occasionally get called "black magic", and there is is an inverse of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

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

#276

Post by borgdefenser »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #189
hombre_fatal wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I just went down a rabbit hole re-looking this up myself. It seems that there's nothing unique about semaglutide, and %FFM loss is just a function of how rapidly you lose weight. The most rapid losers on semaglutide have the same %FFM loss (30%) as bariatric patients, for example. And if you don't want to lose weight that fast, you can just temper the dose (unlike with bariatric surgery).

Or eat protein and exercise. I think it's extremely probable that the most rapid losers are running the largest calorie deficit and also the largest protein deficit.

There is an age/hormone variable too.

I would have said just eat protein and work out when I was in my teens, 20s and early 30s too.

I am 48 and not on testosterone, yet. I actually can't recover at this point from workouts that burn enough calories vs working out less but more calorie restriction in terms of fat loss. Even 60 minute walks cause me to be more hungry to be able to recover from than what I can restrict without walking.

I am at the final death throws of natural and not being on TRT basically. I have been pushing TRT out since my late 30s but have gone way too far.

I think the TRT threshold probably be when you can't outrun calorie restriction by working out. For me, that has probably been since 43 or 44. By 46 for sure.

Personally, I don't need GLP-1s. So many people though do.

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

#277

Post by scarmig »

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”?

Regexes were invented by Kleene in 1951, to describe McCulloch-Pitts neural nets. So, artificial intelligence!

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand...

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

#278

Post by ac29 »

tokai wrote: post #259
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…

Lithium is a good counter. It is by far the best treatment for bipolar 1, and its cheap and easy to source. Prices for lithium carbonate and other lithium medicament's are not at all cheap, and there are not a lot of medical companies producing it. There has even been shortages. Instead antipsychotics have been pushed as a preferred treatment, even though the outcomes are worse than with lithium.

> Prices for lithium carbonate and other lithium medicament's are not at all cheap

You can buy a 3 month supply of Lithium Orotate for like $10. I certainly wouldnt recommend self prescribing this kind of thing though.

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

#279

Post by borgdefenser »

MrMcCall wrote: post #112
borgdefenser wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lean mass is just non-fat mass. That includes much more than just muscle. I can't find any evidence that GLP-1 are catabolic to muscle mass. There is no evidence I can find that GLP-1s do anything above what calorie restriction does. There is a linear relationship between calorie restriction and fat loss down to under 10% body fat. There is so much wrong information on calorie restriction from studies done on people…

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. READ ^THIS^, FRIENDS. In the end, it really is just metabolic math. As a former wrestler who did some insane weight-losing in my youth, the muscle mass loss is due to extreme calorie restriction. Besides, just sitting around starving is not a good way to become healthier in the long run, and that's where the muscle loss will be worst. To be a true journey towards better health, dieting sho…

I only wrestled for 2 weeks in 8th grade but have ASICS MATCONTROL 3 on right now. My gym shoes :)

High school wrestling though might push things too far.Many of those guys under heavyweight do not have the bodyfat % to be restricting so much so are actually losing muscle mass.

I know Jordan Burroughs diet that I have seen seemed like maximum micro nutrients for the calorie because how else can you eat to be a 4 time world champion at 74kg?

I am probably half an inch taller than Burroughs and 163lbs is impossible. It is too far. Way too far.

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

#280

Post by Izkata »

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…

> Python will literally assign the content of your docstring (a triple-quoted string at the start of a function)

Any string. Triple-quoted is just multiline strings and works anywhere.

Post reply on HN