Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

psychologytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 555 posts

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#201

Post by sp527 »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #126
crooked-v wrote: post #17

I'm curious if this post will also have the same phenomena I've seen before of people springing out of the woodwork to post moralizing comments about people shouldn't rely on drugs, about how actually GLP-1s are bad because they don't fix problems indefinitely with a single dose, about how people should fix their problems by just having more willpower, talking about 'but what about the unknown side effects?' of drugs…

And it surely did. Like clockwork. And it is annoying.

A lot of people have had to accept that they've wasted a considerable amount of time and energy on something that is being heavily devalued by GLP-1's. They've also lost an important vector for status signaling. This particularly offends narcissists and the hyper-competitive.

They desperately need to restore status, and one easy option is, in effect, "oh you're still ugly on the inside."

By way of analogy, it has the same underlying motivation as the various sumptuary laws that arose in response to the mass-manufacture of silk.

> The Elizabethan Restrictions: In 1574, Queen Elizabeth I passed strict sumptuary laws to curb "unprecedented social mobility". The Crown decreed that no woman could wear silk cloaks unless her husband was at least a knight, and restricted fabrics mixed with gold or silver to Earls and above.

> Income Thresholds: In 14th-century England, if an esquire or merchant wanted to wear silk, they had to legally prove they made at least £100 a year. If they didn't meet the financial threshold, wearing the fabric was a criminal offense.

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#202

Post by dghlsakjg »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #93
thereisnospork wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to be fat seems like fanciful thinking. The idea that it being genetic or not should matter is odd? Who cares why people are fat? They inarguably are fat and will by all available evidence be skinnier and healthier on a glp drug. I fail to see the need for additional analysis or consideration? Digging into the root cause or petitioning to tweak the food supply to…

> I fail to see the need for additional analysis or consideration? Having 40% of your population on a lifetime drug seems like it could cause significant issues in the long-term, especially if there are unforeseen longterm side effects. Medical intervention seems like it should be a last resort, not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really…

Look up what percentage of people take statins long term at some point in their life. For people in certain age brackets it's more than the 40% of people taking GLP-1s that you are so concerned with. Why don't they just lower their cholesterol via other means?

Look up what percentage of people take antidepressants. Why don't they just try being happy?

Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?

You are only picking on GLP-1s which happen to treat obesity among other illnesses. All of the other medications I listed are treating conditions with non-pharmaceutical interventions, but you haven't stated a problem with a huge percentage of the population using them.

If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.

> not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really should be.

What makes you think that these people haven't tried other options. What makes you think this is the default option, and not a later option? Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat? Do you think that people that can get PHDs doing world changing science, climb mountains, run Fortune 500 companies, hell - run marathons, are just too undisciplined or stupid to lose weight?

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#203

Post by toast0 »

faangguyindia wrote: post #158
crooked-v wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many people, the "underlying issue" is fundamentally just being too hungry for how they live. GLP-1s absolutely treat that.

for many people the underlying issue is serious lack of education when it comes to nutrition. Not understanding calorie balance, not understanding calorie density of the food they eat. How many people know 1kg fat = 7700kcal that if they could create deficit of 7700kcal they could potentially lose 1kg bodyfat? Ofc, i know the relationship isn't that simple but for most people this roughly holds true. If you are eatin…

Plenty of people can take this intelectual knowledge and turn it into eating behaviors that work for them.

But this intelectual knowledge doesn't really help if your body is telling you it's hungry all the time and it's hard not to eat something. Better choices can help, because different calories deliver different satiety; but some people don't get much satiety no matter what they eat.

Calories in vs calories out is true, but it's very hard to measure calories out, so it's sometimes helpful and sometimes completely unhelpful.

These drugs seem to help a lot of people in different ways, but if the underlying issue is that they don't get the satiety signals they need to eat healthy amounts without it, of course it's not surprising that when they stop medicating, they stop getting the satiety signals.

There's a lot of variance among humans, but everybody seems to want a one size fits all approach to eating. That doesn't work; you have to find all the things that work for some people, and then try the most promising options until you find something that works for you. Many people crave novelty, and anyway people change over time, so something that works for someone today might not work for them next year, etc.

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#204

Post by Affric »

crooked-v wrote: post #154
htk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the symptom is being treated, not the underlying issue. And that's ok, but treating the underlying issue, when possible, is better, as the problem ceases to exist.

For many people, the "underlying issue" is fundamentally just being too hungry for how they live. GLP-1s absolutely treat that.

Right so it would seem increased physical exertion would be the answer.

Yeah, humans should have more free time and do enough work or exercise each day to keep their body in shape.

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#205

Post by hack1312 »

fwip wrote: post #172
ajross wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the symptom is being treated, not the underlying issue. That's a semantic argument. The "issue", medically, to most people viewing this as a health problem, is excess body fat and not eating behavior. I mean, you're not wrong, but this seems silly. YES , it would be better to have developed a cure for disordered and unrestrained eating. We didn't. And we don't really even know how. Oops, as it were. But we do h…

Additionally - GLP1 drugs work by changing those eating patterns.

But those changes don’t stick if the drug is discontinued.

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#206

Post by dghlsakjg »

saberience wrote: post #69
crooked-v wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not on GLP-1s, but I've been looking at very seriously because something I can't "fix on my own" is just... always feeling hungry. That's just how my body works. Exercise doesn't help; there's no reasonable amount of exercise that will help with my office-worker stomach wanting 3000 calories a day. So far through my life I've just lived with it and managed my diet as best I can and it just absolutely sucks.

[flagged]

It's physics that you just need to go a certain speed to put an object in orbit.

That doesn't make it an easy thing to do.

Fat people are aware of diet and exercise. They aren't stupid.

Until you have been chronically obese, or helped someone that is chronically obese, you don't understand that it is a deeply rooted subconscious issue, not a physics issue.

Fat people don't want to be fat, anymore than depressed people want to be sad. But something in their minds or bodies makes it non-optional. Pharmaceutical interventions change that thing.

When people - in their millions - say that this is the only effective thing, you could, I dunno, believe them. Or at least believe the pharmacological/medical science, which is, to circle back, all just physics.

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#207

Post by ceejayoz »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #165
ceejayoz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does there have to be a downside? What was the downside of washing hands before surgery?

One argument would be that Ozempic doesn't give your body any additional resources. It just triggers your body to behave in a different way. But if the changes it causes are universally good, why didn't evolution already make your body work that way? I suppose the counterargument would be that modern life is different from the evolutionary environment, and so it's possible for a change to be beneficial now that wasn'…

> But if the changes it causes are universally good, why didn't evolution already make your body work that way?

That’s not how evolution works.

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#208

Post by tayo42 »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #82
saberience wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The problem with exercise is that our bodies are quite efficient with their energy usage. A few minutes of ‘calories in’ takes many hours of ‘calories out’ to burn. You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day, even if you somehow were able to dedicate all your time to exercising you would still have to limit your food intake. Add to that the fact that exercise is mind numbingly boring and…

You can pick better activities for exercise. You don't have to run on a treadmill

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#209

Post by mynameisash »

dmayle wrote: post #177
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #16

Studies show almost all subjects regained the weight and reversed gains within 2 years. This means underlying issues (e.g., food addiction) aren't being addressed. Short of changing habits, the only maintenance solution is lifelong drug use and that doesn't sit well with me.

The issue isn't food addiction, it's a broken hunger response (broken by Howard Moskowitz intentionally in the name of profits)... You have to change your food regimen completely (higher fiber, more protein, less sugar, less carbs, less fat), and that's tough to do when you're surrounded by options that aren't... I think the real problem is that the symptom we're trying to treat is "overweight", and it's actually a t…

What breaks the hunger response, and how does one fix it?

Maybe it's well-known, but I read the starvation response Wikipedia page[0] and didn't grok it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

Re: What Ozempic does to the gut-brain axis

#210

Post by Terr_ »

faangguyindia wrote: post #153
barake wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semaglutide does an incredible job of keeping my autoimmune issues in check. The only side effect I've had is needing to drink more water or else I feel like I've got the flu. Minimal tradeoff IMO

I remember reading the Hazada paradox, where they found these Hadza tribe members who live an active life, walking miles, hunting, and doing all physical labour, have the same maintenance calories as a Western person. So where does the energy burn in a sedentary population come from vs highly active Hadza tribe members? Pontzer’s research showed that while the Hadza were highly active, they actually demonstrated lowe…

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405064/

> Nonetheless, average daily energy expenditure of traditional Hadza foragers was no different than that of Westerners after controlling for body size. The metabolic cost of walking (kcal kg−1 m−1) and resting (kcal kg−1 s−1) were also similar among Hadza and Western groups. The similarity in metabolic rates across a broad range of cultures challenges current models of obesity suggesting that Western lifestyles lead to decreased energy expenditure.

> So where does the energy burn in a sedentary population come from vs highly active Hadza tribe members?

P.S.: One theory I've seen is that the extra sedentary-spend is in the immune-system, which may have both beneficial and harmful effects, depending on whether it's doing useful work versus causing problems.

Post reply on HN