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

291–300 of 394 posts

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

#291

Post by aaronblohowiak »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #217
derektank wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exercise is great for your health, but it generally has a negligible effect on weight loss because exercise doesn't actually consume that many calories. The biggest benefit of exercise on weight loss is the temporary exercise-induced anorexia that occurs in very high intensity workouts.

You are so full of shit. I get on the treadmill for 1 hour and consume 700 calories in that hour. Heavy exercise also causes improved appetite and sleep regulation as it fixes your blood sugar levels. This leads to your demand for food and especially the worst kinds to paradoxically go down for most fat people (they were already eating too many calories) Calories in and calories out shows that I will durably lose wei…

Most obese and very overweight people cannot sustain the output of 700 calories an hour, cardiovascularly (spelling) or with the state of their knees and muscles.

Also, it’s very easy to eat an extra 700 calories especially if you are in the “I worked out so I deserve a treat” camp.

Your lack of understanding comes across in your stance as well as the attitude.

Yes exercise is fantastic for your quality of life years and all cause mortality, but it’s not the whole story.

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

#292

Post by virtue3 »

ac29 wrote: post #278
tokai wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not enough dosing to treat bipolar.

You have to dose relatively high in order to have an effect. You’re disrupting your neural sodium-potassium pumps with it.

But it’s still pretty cheap. Hard to charge a lot for a fairly abundant element.

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

#293

Post by xracy »

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'm sorry, your hypothesis is that people will be less likely to try and build products around a naturally occurring weight-loss drug?

Like, less likely than they would be to pay Ozempic to use their patent? I mean, I could believe that if there weren't like Billions of dollars being funneled into weight-loss programs and foods that don't have any demonstrative weight-loss capabilities.

If this actually works and is naturally occurring, I'd be surprised if there weren't like enterprising startups and food companies adding this to existing products within a year or 2.

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

#295

Post by astura »

hollerith wrote: post #265
tokai wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lithium in dosages effective in treating a mood disorder is quite toxic (e.g., to the kidneys) so most of the price is probably to offset the risk of lawsuit awards.

But antipsychotics cause movement disorders and metabolic syndrome.

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

#296

Post by anotherpaul »

archimedes237 wrote: post #268
anotherpaul wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08683-y This seems to be the paper, but its behind a paywall. Anyone with access can tell me if they publish the 12mer amino acid sequence? Is there more to it (post translational modifications) Or is it just the peptide?

Note, I have access but this is not my field. I just asked ChatGPT your question after have it read the paper. This is what the response was: Yes, the paper provides the 12-mer amino acid sequence of BRP: THRILRRLFNLC . Regarding post-translational modifications, the BRP peptide was synthesized with a C-terminal amidation, which was critical for its bioactivity. The non-amidated version of BRP was inactive in vitro .…

Very nice, thank you. This indeed answers my question.

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

#297

Post by greggsy »

throwup238 wrote: post #263
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.

That’s not exactly true. Cannabidiol (CBD) is naturally occurring and there’s a commercial FDA approved drug for epileptic seizures in children called Epidiolex. If I remember correctly, the patent is for “Oral cannabinoid formulations”. Even without a patent, companies can get FDA exclusivity but for not as long as a patent grants them so unless the addressable market is huge, it’s a financially riskier bet.

Keyword there being ‘formulation’, not ‘molecule’

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

#298

Post by cj »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #294
cj wrote: post #2

What does "naturally occurring" mean in this context?

I'm assuming it means occuring somewhere in nature, but then the question is where. Is there some edible plant that contains this, perhaps?

According to the article they tested tens of thousands of amino acid chain peptides and used “AI” to find this one and synthesized it.

Unless we expect that every protein combination exists somewhere in nature, this pretty much by definition isn’t naturally occurring.

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

#299

Post by jajko »

cosmie wrote: post #182
vlovich123 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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”?

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

I am still waiting for an LLM trained to focus on effin' regexes and their variants like sed, somebody please do a page with ads for this and you will have a nice little side income and warm fuzzy feeling on top of it.

Natural language -> fully working one, I don't mean some email validators but way more complex stuff. Although, I've recently had a case which was too much even for regexes in any form or spec, then sort of grammar-based parser needed to be done from scratch.

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

#300

Post by obvi8 »

Retric wrote: post #167
mikenew wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the point. Mine is that an ordinary untrained person will see health benefits and a statistically longer life from more muscle. An overweight person would have more muscle than their non-overweight counterparts (mostly localized to the legs, not upper body), and that is the one and only positive of being overweight. Willfully throwing that away will harm your health, full stop. The muscle loss problem wi…

There’s negative cardiovascular effects from excess muscle just as with excess fat. Normally that’s offset by the health effects of the exercise required to gain and maintain them as well as the lack of medical conditions that prevent exercise etc. But a fat person losing weight should inherently lose muscle mass long term assuming no changes to lifestyle.

I was looking for this comment! Not a doctor, but as I understand it muscle is roughly equivalent to fat as far as your heart’s workload is concerned. I thought I also read that muscle movement helps with blood return.
Post reply on HN