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

281–290 of 394 posts

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

#281

Post by borgdefenser »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #176
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…

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).

Keep in mind I am not using GLP-1s myself because I am unsure of the long term risks.

What worries me is if what if in 20 years of use, something with insulin gets blown out?

There is a chance it could be a drug for life like testosterone. We know though how devastating obesity is on health so it is really going to be up to the individual to take the risk. Not really my business at that level.

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

#282

Post by Izkata »

jcl wrote: post #135
trehalose wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That regex detects things like "eeieiieeeiA __ 1 2 3__" as a proper noun. I'm confused by the decision to accept any number of leading [ei] and any number of trailing (?:\s+[_\d]+).

It only looks for a single leading “e” or “i”, not any number. I’m guessing those tweaks were added to capture specific proper nouns that weren’t captured by simpler “leading capital letter” regexes, like “iPad” or “eBay”.

"*" is "0 or more" and "+" is "1 or more", it looks for any number of "e" or "i" at the beginning and at least one capital letter. The diagram below the regex is wrong.

Instead of

  [ie]*-?[A-Z]+
it looks like they wanted

  [ie]?-?[A-Z]

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

#284

Post by im3w1l »

olalonde wrote: post #234
im3w1l wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The RDA is 0.37 g/pound. For a 180 pound guy, that means 67g of protein. That might sound low, but wait... At least according to this one page I found, 25% of American adults eat below RDA. It's not hard to imagine then that there are many people for whom 22g extra could make a decent difference.

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

#285

Post by Izkata »

JohnMakin wrote: post #175
mikenew wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absurd. Muscle mass is a huge predictor of mortality and anyone who isn't actively strength training and maintaining higher levels of muscle would see a health benefit by doing so. The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. The side affect of muscle loss from these glp-1 agonist drugs is a serious downside that everyone should be aware of and try to mitigate if they choose to take t…

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…

> One insidious thing with these GLP1 drugs, is that they also seemingly affect muscles like the heart.

Okay so I don't know where I picked this up - it was a decade or more ago - but I always thought the problem was losing weight too fast is what causes bad muscle loss such as from the heart, or from leg/other muscles beyond what's no longer needed from the weight loss. Something like, you're starving yourself so your body starts drawing energy not just from your fat but from anywhere it can.

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

#286

Post by thayne »

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…

Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) is both significantly cheaper, and less risky than epidurals for reducing pain during childbirth. Yet, in the US, most hospitals don't even offer it as an option, and I think a major part of that is that patented epidurals have much higher margins, so that is what the medical suppliers push.

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

#287

Post by xhevahir »

VagabundoP wrote: post #10

They mention AI used to weed out molecules but don't mention how it was used. I'd be interested in know did they use pre-trained models or train one from the ground up.

It looks like it's this: https://github.com/Svensson-Lab/pro-hormone-predictor

Annoying that journalists call everything "AI" these days.

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

#289

Post by olalonde »

im3w1l wrote: post #284
olalonde wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The RDA is 0.37 g/pound. For a 180 pound guy, that means 67g of protein. That might sound low, but wait... At least according to this one page I found, 25% of American adults eat below RDA. It's not hard to imagine then that there are many people for whom 22g extra could make a decent difference.

0.37g/pound is on the very very low end though, far from optimal on a weight loss diet.

See this article: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-protein-diet-plan#...

> The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of protein is 0.8 g per kilogram of body weight (g/kg/bw), or 0.36 g per pound of body weight (g/lbs/bw).

> However, the authors of a 2019 review suggest that this number is often misinterpreted as the ideal number. It’s only the minimum amount of protein required to prevent nutrient deficiencies and muscle loss in most healthy individuals.

> A 2017 study found that participants who ate a high protein diet of 1.34 g/kg/bw (0.6 g/lbs/bw) for more than 75% of the 6-month duration experienced significantly more weight loss than the group who followed the RDA requirements.

> A 2016 review found that eating up to 2 g/kg/bw (0.9 g/lbs/bw) may help promote strength and prevent muscle degeneration.

etc.

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

#290

Post by UltraSane »

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.

Writing one that does exactly what you want is very satisfying. And with Python you can have named groups extracted into a dict and it just feels like magic.
Post reply on HN