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

381–390 of 394 posts

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

#381

Post by TheRealPomax »

fire_lake wrote: post #348
TheRealPomax wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Annoyingly it pushes the type definitions away from the function body when you have a particularly long doc. It’s a cute trick but docs above would have been better.

You know what's cool: IDEs. They can do block folding. The really good ones just auto-fold function docs because you don't need to see those until you do.

It's not just a good trick: it's the right way to do it, and tooling can be (trivially) made to show you only what you need to see until you need to see more.

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

#382

Post by cthalupa »

Retric wrote: post #380
cthalupa wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>muscle mass is required for their lifestyle The problem here is that the overwhelming majority of people that need GLP-1s have lifestyles that are not conducive to health and have less muscle mass than would be healthy to begin with. Which is what has me so confounded by this claims - these people already have less muscle than they should for optimal health. Losing any is a significant issue. And without lifestyle i…

Let’s ignore GLP-1, and assume an individual slowly dieted to that exact same weight. What’s going to happen over the following year(s) is their lifestyle causes identical muscle loss. In that context is this a long term downside of GLP-1 or their lifestyle? Treating lean muscle mass as an inherent good makes sense when it’s adapted to a person’s current lifestyle. It doesn’t make sense when it’s a temporary situatio…

False dichotomy - much of the muscle loss happens because of the rapid weight loss. If you diet more slowly and are not at very high levels of relative musculature you’re not going to lose nearly as much even in the long run, at least prior to advanced age. The newly skinny person might lose some muscle mass on their legs if they dieted down slowly, but it is significantly less likely that they will lose all of the other body-wide muscle mass that they do with rapid weight loss.

Your body will hold on to a surprising amount of muscle. Even people that take PEDs can drop back down to natural testosterone levels and keep ~80% of their gains in the long term. (Actual gains, not the temporary glycogen and intra-muscular water retention that you see with some compounds on cycle.) It takes significant effort for them, but they’re trying to hold on to supraphysiological levels, vs. someone who is trying to hold on to what is already on the lower end of the physiological range.

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

#383

Post by dghlsakjg »

yellowapple wrote: post #338
dghlsakjg wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naturally occurring has little to do with cost of production. Coral snake venom is naturally occurring and has medicinal uses. $4,000 per gram.

I'm sure coral snake venom would be a lot cheaper if coral snake farms were more commonplace.

It’s not hard to start a venemous snake farm. Most states allow venemous snake keeping with various levels of oversight (some states there is no oversight) I think it has more to do with how hard it is to get venom out of a reclusive rear fanged snake.

The main point is just that “naturally occurring” has nothing to do with price.

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

#384

Post by crazygringo »

sn9 wrote: post #372
crazygringo wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK? Nobody's talking about that?

>You lose fat in your arms and your shoulders don't need to be quite as strong. This is literally describing spot reduction of fat.

No, it's literally the opposite.

I was describing how you lose fat all over. And as part of overall fat reduction, you lose fat in your arms, because your arms are one part of all over.

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

#385

Post by crazygringo »

sn9 wrote: post #374
crazygringo wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The goal for anyone obese is to lose as much fat as sustainably possible. Correct. > For any given rate of weight loss, losing a higher proportion of body fat is always better. That is in direct contradiction to your previous sentence. No, losing the higher absolute amount of body fat is better. While being sustainable healthy. > I've been on fitness forums for well over a decade and have literally never seen a sin…

> That is in direct contradiction to your previous sentence. No, losing the higher absolute amount of body fat is better. While being sustainable healthy. This isn't in any way a contradiction if you're mathematically literate. If the highest rate of weight loss is some rate R, and losing weight without preserving muscle has you losing 0.5R muscle and 0.5R fat, losing R fat and 0 muscle is literally going to lose you…

> if you're mathematically literate

No insults, please. I'm sure that if you have good arguments, you won't need to resort to that kind of attitude. And the fact that you're resorting to swearing later in your comment doesn't help you.

> If the highest rate of weight loss is some rate R

That's not a valid precondition. Nobody chooses a rate to lose weight at, and then magically chooses some proportion of fat vs muscle. What actually happens is that you lose fat through eating less calories, and you naturally lose muscle from using your leg muscles less by putting less weight on them, because you weigh less.

> No where did I suggest this.

You did. You literally said:

> This notion of "balanced" healthy muscle is one you've made up

You are arguing that one should preserve all of the leg muscle for a 300 lb body, even once you're 180 lbs. Again, that's absurd. That's going to take a far disproportionate amount of time at the gym on your legs to maintain. You say "No leg emphasis needed." That's completely and utterly false.

You are talking about bulking and cutting for strength training. But you already have a balanced body, I'm assuming. This conversation, on the other hand, is about obese people losing weight. Their muscles are disproportionately in their legs. Do you get that now? Do you understand the concept of a balanced distribution of muscle and strength, e.g. between arms and legs? Or since you're so concerned about having a conversation at a "middle school" level, do you need it explained in even simpler terms?

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

#386

Post by Retric »

cthalupa wrote: post #382
Retric wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s ignore GLP-1, and assume an individual slowly dieted to that exact same weight. What’s going to happen over the following year(s) is their lifestyle causes identical muscle loss. In that context is this a long term downside of GLP-1 or their lifestyle? Treating lean muscle mass as an inherent good makes sense when it’s adapted to a person’s current lifestyle. It doesn’t make sense when it’s a temporary situatio…

False dichotomy - much of the muscle loss happens because of the rapid weight loss. If you diet more slowly and are not at very high levels of relative musculature you’re not going to lose nearly as much even in the long run, at least prior to advanced age. The newly skinny person might lose some muscle mass on their legs if they dieted down slowly, but it is significantly less likely that they will lose all of the o…

> False dichotomy

No, you’re looking at the short term effects on a largely irrelevant metric (volume) while ignoring the underlying mechanisms at play.

> Your body will hold on to a surprising amount of muscle.

It’s only surprising if you ignore what going on at the cellular level. Gaining fat or muscle eventually involves gaining new cells and structures like capillaries not just increased the volume of existing cells. This is a really slow process in muscle, but those new cells stick around and can rapidly adapt to stimulus as long as you have a sufficient diet.

So yes in rapid weight loss your individual muscles cells become smaller and less capable but that’s very quick to recover. Longer term, you’ll hit the exact same homeostasis point based on stimulus and long term diet.

PS: If this seems like voodoo magic it’s simply a very old evolutionary response to starvation that predates hominid development. Being able to fairly rapidly lower energy expenditure over say winter and then recover is a major advantage.

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

#387

Post by cthalupa »

Retric wrote: post #386
cthalupa wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy - much of the muscle loss happens because of the rapid weight loss. If you diet more slowly and are not at very high levels of relative musculature you’re not going to lose nearly as much even in the long run, at least prior to advanced age. The newly skinny person might lose some muscle mass on their legs if they dieted down slowly, but it is significantly less likely that they will lose all of the o…

> False dichotomy No, you’re looking at the short term effects on a largely irrelevant metric (volume) while ignoring the underlying mechanisms at play. > Your body will hold on to a surprising amount of muscle. It’s only surprising if you ignore what going on at the cellular level. Gaining fat or muscle eventually involves gaining new cells and structures like capillaries not just increased the volume of existing ce…

> Gaining fat or muscle eventually involves gaining new cells and structures like capillaries not just increased the volume of existing cells. This is a really slow process in muscle, but those new cells stick around and can rapidly adapt to stimulus as long as you have a sufficient diet.

It's an open question if hyperplasia even occurs in adult humans, and if so, under what conditions. MSC proliferation and differentiation is a thing, but none of this is actually particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

> So yes in rapid weight loss your individual muscles cells become smaller and less capable but that’s very quick to recover. Longer term, you’ll hit the exact same homeostasis point based on stimulus and long term diet.

I'm not talking about hypothetical situations where people treat this more like a cut and then turn their lives around when it comes to resistance training and protein intake, because we know that in large part they don't. We know that a good portion of people on GLP-1 medications become sarcopenic and stay that way. And this whole thread basically started because someone was claiming that the muscle loss was good!

I'm not saying GLP-1s are bad or rapid weight loss is bad - I'm just saying you need to take steps to avoid muscle loss. And a huge amount of people on GLP-1s don't know about or understand these risks.

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

#388

Post by Retric »

cthalupa wrote: post #387
Retric wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> False dichotomy No, you’re looking at the short term effects on a largely irrelevant metric (volume) while ignoring the underlying mechanisms at play. > Your body will hold on to a surprising amount of muscle. It’s only surprising if you ignore what going on at the cellular level. Gaining fat or muscle eventually involves gaining new cells and structures like capillaries not just increased the volume of existing ce…

> Gaining fat or muscle eventually involves gaining new cells and structures like capillaries not just increased the volume of existing cells. This is a really slow process in muscle, but those new cells stick around and can rapidly adapt to stimulus as long as you have a sufficient diet. It's an open question if hyperplasia even occurs in adult humans, and if so, under what conditions. MSC proliferation and differen…

> I'm just saying you need to take steps to avoid muscle loss.

Do you have any evidence that long term lifestyle isn’t going to result in similar levels of strength?

> if hyperplasia even occurs in adult humans

It definitely occurs in other mammal muscle and some human tissue, and there’s studies supporting it occurring in human muscle. Myofibre splitting for example definitely occurs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16625366/

I’ll admit there’s controversy here, but I think the default position should be human biology is similar to other mammals unless someone demonstrates otherwise. Otherwise our unwillingness to preform experiments on humans and the expense of primate experimentation is going to create a scientific bias.

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

#389

Post by nkrisc »

genewitch wrote: post #351
nkrisc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a definition of “naturally occurring” is useless, and thus pointless to entertain. Besides, it doesn’t “all” originate from Earth. If you want to be really uselessly pedantic, nothing on Earth originated on Earth.

What percentage came from the sun and what percentage came from without the sun?

The sun and all the planets and other bodies in the solar system all formed from the same cloud of material. Very little of the matter on Earth is from the sun, and very little of the matter in the sun is from the sun, even.

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

#390

Post by hadlock »

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?

The global coffee market is worth $138 billion, the soft drink industry is $556 billion (and growing). The vast majority of which being caffeinated. Starbucks the company is #116 on the Fortune 500 and #1 in food services. There's sufficient economic activity to warrant continued research in the area.
Post reply on HN