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

Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

ualberta.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 461 posts

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#101

Post by voisin »

throwup238 wrote: post #31
cm2187 wrote: post #13

> emerging research showing that up to 40 per cent of the weight lost by people using weight-loss drugs is actually muscle That's the sort of headlines that smells like bullshit to me. My understand of those drugs is that they don't actually make you lose weight, they just cut your appetite so you can follow a diet to lose weight without hunger hammering at the door. So to start with, if that's the case, all they are…

The next line of the article after that 40% quote: > Carla Prado, a nutrition researcher in the Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences and lead author on the commentary, explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues — including decreased immunity, increased risk…

> If you continue to eat a protein and nutrient deficient diet (which is probably a majority of Americans)

Is it true the majority of Americans eat a protein deficient diet? I always thought there was too much protein in the western diet - nearly at every meals versus how we would have evolved with somewhat limited access.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#102

Post by ipsento606 »

throwup238 wrote: post #31
cm2187 wrote: post #13

> emerging research showing that up to 40 per cent of the weight lost by people using weight-loss drugs is actually muscle That's the sort of headlines that smells like bullshit to me. My understand of those drugs is that they don't actually make you lose weight, they just cut your appetite so you can follow a diet to lose weight without hunger hammering at the door. So to start with, if that's the case, all they are…

The next line of the article after that 40% quote: > Carla Prado, a nutrition researcher in the Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences and lead author on the commentary, explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues — including decreased immunity, increased risk…

The claim that "a majority of Americans" eat a protein deficient diet is absurd on its face.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#103

Post by throwup238 »

llamaimperative wrote: post #79
throwup238 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard that anecdote from HN users many times but based on my meatspace social group of (mostly) California yuppies, that effect is vastly overstated. Even some of the diabetics I know on Ozempic have started using it as an excuse for a shittier diet. Now my sample size is barely ten people on Ozempic/Wegovy so take it with a grain of salt and what not, but I’m skeptical. I bet there’s a large group of people - p…

Odd Lots (Bloomberg finance podcast) had an episode back in June or something interviewing a food design consultant, and their focus groups came back very strongly in favor of healthier meal compositions. Agreed though, it's hard to know things :) Hopefully some real studies on this will be done soon.

Did the consultant describe the change in focus group results or just the latest ones?

I was under the impression that consumers have been asking for healthier food compositions for decades, probably since the 70s or 80s when all the FUD around fat started. Maybe GLP1 agonists bring their buying choices more inline with the focus group results which would be an interesting phenomenon.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#104

Post by dgfitz »

CyanLite2 wrote: post #69

If you’re 20% smaller, it would make sense that your heart could pump 20% less.

Uh, I think most highly in/shape people have normal sized, very healthy hearts and their bpm is like 45.

Their hearts are not physically smaller, nor did they shrink during their build-up to current physique.

Saying things like this is harmful at best. Please don’t.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#105

Post by llamaimperative »

throwup238 wrote: post #103
llamaimperative wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd Lots (Bloomberg finance podcast) had an episode back in June or something interviewing a food design consultant, and their focus groups came back very strongly in favor of healthier meal compositions. Agreed though, it's hard to know things :) Hopefully some real studies on this will be done soon.

Did the consultant describe the change in focus group results or just the latest ones? I was under the impression that consumers have been asking for healthier food compositions for decades, probably since the 70s or 80s when all the FUD around fat started. Maybe GLP1 agonists bring their buying choices more inline with the focus group results which would be an interesting phenomenon.

I forget the design of the experiment but I remember feeling that my prior assumptions (which were in line with GP) were potentially wrong, so it must've been moderately convincing. I work in clinical trials so I'm not a complete buffoon on experiment design, but accordingly I'm also aware a good experiment is obscenely difficult to conduct, and obviously this was nothing close to an actual RCT.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#106

Post by dgfitz »

voisin wrote: post #101
throwup238 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next line of the article after that 40% quote: > Carla Prado, a nutrition researcher in the Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences and lead author on the commentary, explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues — including decreased immunity, increased risk…

> If you continue to eat a protein and nutrient deficient diet (which is probably a majority of Americans) Is it true the majority of Americans eat a protein deficient diet? I always thought there was too much protein in the western diet - nearly at every meals versus how we would have evolved with somewhat limited access.

So, lots of foraging for food that grows on plants and the occasional bison?

Would that we could convert the world to diets like that.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#108

Post by bongodongobob »

throwup238 wrote: post #31
cm2187 wrote: post #13

> emerging research showing that up to 40 per cent of the weight lost by people using weight-loss drugs is actually muscle That's the sort of headlines that smells like bullshit to me. My understand of those drugs is that they don't actually make you lose weight, they just cut your appetite so you can follow a diet to lose weight without hunger hammering at the door. So to start with, if that's the case, all they are…

The next line of the article after that 40% quote: > Carla Prado, a nutrition researcher in the Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences and lead author on the commentary, explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues — including decreased immunity, increased risk…

Americans eat a shit ton of protein. No idea where you got idea that from.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#109

Post by throwaway2037 »

hnthrowaway0328 wrote: post #35
cm2187 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't lose taste, you lose your appetite, which means you can resist the temptation to eat easily, and you feel full very quickly. That doesn't prevent you from eating what you like, but it does help you to not eat too much of it, which I hope is not what you mean by "more freely". The appetite comes back when you cut the meds, but it's an appetite based on your new weight. But if you then go on a some suggar ram…

Thanks, that's good enough. I have been going to weight loss for over 6 months but I'm stuck between 79 and 80kg. It's a bit difficult to add more weight lifting because I tended to hurt myself, so eat less is better.

    > It's a bit difficult to add more weight lifting because I tended to hurt myself
Did you try slightly lower weight and higher reps? It is worth trying as an experiment. Current scientific literature says that 5-30 reps is the ideal range for gaining muscle mass. And, as you said, the relative heaviness of weights to the person makes a big difference for injury risk.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#110

Post by akira2501 »

_yb2s wrote: post #68
akira2501 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, except without error checking, and fully analog technology. Although, "single cosmic ray upset events," are just as devastating.

There's tons and tons of error checking- we have at least 5 different error correction and repair systems in DNA, cell cycle checkpoints, and extreme redundancy and feedback homeostasis at nearly every level. Every individual cell has it's own 4 copies of almost every critical gene- two of each chromosome made up of two strands of DNA each. Human bodies can function 70+ years, sometimes with no medical care- somethin…

Redundancy is not error checking. The "error correction" mechanisms are actually just "proofreading" mechanisms and are almost entirely local and centered around transcription. Common mode errors are harder to induce due to the plain redundancy of DNA pairs but also not impossible, and once induced, are impossible to locally notice or correct. In some cases the "error correction" machinery is the cause of these induced errors. The result is genetic disease and/or cancer and is a case of missing error _checking_. Perhaps my definition was exceptionally parsimonious.

> with no medical care [...] something no computer or man made complex machine comes close to.

That's because we get far more units of "work" out of our machines than the person living for 70 years with "no medical care." Some people live just 30 years with no medical care too. And the machine does not need to sleep. We eat food they eat lubrication oil. I don't think this was a good analogy.

> it's still mostly a total mystery why we aren't immortal

While we haven't pinpointed the mechanism, we have a pretty good idea of why, and where in the system we should be looking for the answers.

> but for some reason get worse and worse at doing so over time.

You are a living Ship of Theseus and these "error correction" mechanisms are not perfect. Aside from this there are known genetic disorders which alter the rate at which people age. This is not nearly as mysterious as you're making it out to be.

> there are many animals that live ~4x human lifespans

And what are their resting respiration rates?

> and at least one species of jellyfish that is biologically immortal.

In theory. We haven't found an immortal one yet. They all die. They're also nowhere near our level of biological complexity or capability.

Post reply on HN