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

Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#171

Post by sokoloff »

ausbah wrote: post #119
niemandhier wrote: post #109

I think people often tend to treat drastic deviations from standard appearance as an indicator for undesirable character traits. If you are badly groomed as a man, you tend to be perceived as careless. In my experience if you are obese, people think you lack will power and discipline. Changing how people view you for the better always has an influence on your personal success.

first sentence is one step from outright discrimination even if not everyone recognizes it. if you’re visibly transgender/queer, have noticeable accent, visible disability, and on and on and on

It probably is zero steps from outright discrimination, but it matches my estimation of how humans actually behave.

I read it as a “is” statement not an “ought to be” statement.

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#172

Post by tancop »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. That usage is the opposite of “forever chemicals” though. Isn’t it a good thing GLP-1s don’t permanently change your body?

It certainly can be a good thing! But it can also be considered a bad thing that you have to keep taking them, and have to keep paying for them forever. A one-time fix (a cure) can be more desirable than a lifelong treatment regimen.

how do you permanently cure obesity? you can try rewiring metabolism with crispr or some epigenetic changes but thats insanely risky, it would be very likely to mess up the immune system and give people cancer or nerve disorders.

maybe i could see something based on modified gut bacteria that produce GLP-1 drugs inside your body. that would run into problems with dose regulation but at least you can flush them out with antibiotics if you get a bad response.

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#173

Post by TMWNN »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #158
kixiQu wrote: post #5

I think there's a lot of just-world fallacy going around re: how I keep running across the following pattern online now that GLP-1RA drugs exist. Commenter A (esp. often a woman, though of any age): I lost a lot of weight and people treat me radically better. I did not change my behavior in a way that explains this; it seems like stigma / prejudice. Commenter B: I have never met you but it is probably the case that s…

One of my favorite examples of this is a transgender woman who worked at Subway (sandwich shop) and wrote about her experience on reddit. Someone posed a question on reddit that was something like "people who have transitioned, how did others treat you differently after the fact." I interpreted the question as how did friends and family react after knowing you previously as one gender and then another, but this trans…

>Before she transitioned, as a man she said she'd get lots of compliments and kudos from customers for basically just doing her job at Subway. As a woman, though, people were much more likely to complain and she was rarely complimented, and only if she went "above and beyond" her normal work duties.

Highly relevant: Norah Vincent's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book)>

Vincent later committed suicide. She found from writing the above book that being a man was so difficult that it caused a breakdown. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/obituaries/norah-vincent-...>

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#174

Post by nujabe »

Balooga wrote: post #105
arjie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Part of the reason I was eager to use retatrutide was the reversibility. Fantastic drug and entirely reversible. I self-tested and the effects I had on it were reversed entirely in its absence. Similar to caffeine or amphetamine at the doses I have tried (which are not high), removing the intervention resulted in a return to a prior state over a fairly short period. I'd say that, in general, some of the…

The side effect of drastic muscle loss isn't quickly reversible though. Because muscle is about 3x as expensive to maintain as fat, unless you are on some major strength training to maintain, muscle is the very first thing that your body gets rid of when losing weight. So now you are off the GLP-1. But you also have to eat fewer calories to maintain a calorie deficit because you no longer have all that calorie burnin…

It doesn’t have to be a foregone conclusion that GLP-1 causes muscle loss though. The primary reason for the muscle loss is the reduction in calories and protein intake. If you want to keep most of your muscle mass you can just make sure you keep up with your daily caloric and protein needs.

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#175

Post by TMWNN »

elmer2 wrote: post #157
ausbah wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

first sentence is one step from outright discrimination even if not everyone recognizes it. if you’re visibly transgender/queer, have noticeable accent, visible disability, and on and on and on

I can get on board with this. However, discrimination based on political affiliation has been rampant in Silicon Valley ever since Trump has been president. In addition to this, I regularly am looking for contract work, and have jobs outright ask me if I am part of the LGBT community in the interview process. This is almost all coming from California. Before DOGE cut most of the budgets, NGOs would tell me that they…

>However, discrimination based on political affiliation has been rampant in Silicon Valley ever since Trump has been president.

Same thing in Hollywood (and long before Trump): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Abe>

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#176

Post by altairprime »

sokoloff wrote: post #169
altairprime wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The study also paints this as "kind of unfair against women", but didn't include men at all. Unfairness found against one segment is not negated by studying only one segment, and “but” is a load-bearing word representing your entire one-word claim. Please explain in more words what argument you’re supporting with your two observations?

If I read a medical paper that concluded and headlined that “cancer kills left-handed patients” but studied only left-handed patients, I might think the study was technically correct but still reasonably wonder if the left-handedness is relevant to the study’s results.

> wonder if the left-handedness is relevant to the study's results

Considering this in generic, such distinctions are relevant to all scientific research studies for two reasons:

First, the hypothesis was only tested for a population of left-handed patients. So, while it serves as a foundational basis for future research both exclusively on left-handed patients, and for research on populations exclusive of left-handed patients, it cannot serve as a basis for any claims about any population exclusive of left-handed patients. This is generally applicable to all scientific research: you must not draw conclusions that exceed the scope of your study.

Second, there is no 'best' level of population diversity for studies to target in their research. One study may target left-handedness; another may target blonde six-fingered men; and a third may target an even distribution of people from all ages and races, but restricting to one region's current population alone in that selection. Restrictions are normal and correct to consider, to implement, and/or to acknowledge, so long as the restrictions do not manipulate the outcome.

Moving on to trying to understand your specific concerns regarding this specific study, I still don't see any opinions expressed by you about this study. You're describing the basic circumstances about scientific research but have not yet made any claims, nor have expressed any personal opinions, about this study in particular and why you're interested in talking about it. There are no sentences that yet contain "I think that [opinion]" or any synonym thereof, and so no takeaway is possible from your comments thus far.

Perhaps one of these examples will help you find a way to communicate your views to us. These are just creative napkin sketches, to help encourage you begin sharing your viewpoint with us. You could tackle them as direct questions and answer at length — a simple yes/no will fully devalue your views, so I discourage that! — or you could construct your own opinions as statements rather than questions and then say "I feel / believe / think that ___"; whatever works best for you.

1. Is your argument that this study was inappropriately selective, and that should invalidate its results as inapplicable to all populations?

2. Are you appreciative of the study's design and outcome, and wish to see it repeated for another population?

3. Do you have any conflicts of interest to declare regarding the population restrictions of this study?

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#177

Post by altairprime »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #158
kixiQu wrote: post #5

I think there's a lot of just-world fallacy going around re: how I keep running across the following pattern online now that GLP-1RA drugs exist. Commenter A (esp. often a woman, though of any age): I lost a lot of weight and people treat me radically better. I did not change my behavior in a way that explains this; it seems like stigma / prejudice. Commenter B: I have never met you but it is probably the case that s…

One of my favorite examples of this is a transgender woman who worked at Subway (sandwich shop) and wrote about her experience on reddit. Someone posed a question on reddit that was something like "people who have transitioned, how did others treat you differently after the fact." I interpreted the question as how did friends and family react after knowing you previously as one gender and then another, but this trans…

I can definitely attest to this as well. I transitioned during the pandemic and one of my coworkers, who hadn't seen me below the face for three years, did a physical actual double-take after saying hello to the cute stranger as they walked by — and then began creating a hostile work environment, trying and failing to exert power over me, and so on. It turns out their belief system required them to exercise automatic authority over women, and so years of cooperation pivoted — within just a couple days of saying hello to me a different body — into years of hostility and repeated attempts to exert unwarranted authority beyond their scope of work. It was a truly excellent control/experiment outcome, and I suspect these sort of stories are a factor in why so many people are so hostile to trans people being listened to: it reveals two-faced behaviors and biases, just as GLP-1 with its rapid weight loss does, and those stories and their accompanying studies such as this one carry significant weight in societal development away from bias.

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#178

Post by minimaltom »

asdff wrote: post #167
minimaltom wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a commonly-held misconception. Even when individuals accurately account for calories and workout intensity (using hard data, not feels), theres a large variance across individuals, broadly attributable to 'metabolics'.

While that is true there is variance it doesn't vary to the point of overcoming the basic thermodynamics at play. Facts are, you eat fewer calories, you lose weight. You burn more calories than previously without eating to make up the difference, you lose weight. There is no obese person that can starve themselves and not lose weight. It just doesn't work like that. The energy has to come from somewhere. What often h…

Sure the thermodynamic reduction of `weight-loss := energy-in Most pointedly, theres a number of studies that measured outcomes from over/under-feeding identical twins [1] or varying exercise in identical twins [2] and found significantly wider variance WITHIN twin pairs than across the whole study. Phrased differently, calorie intake + exercise doesn't predict the outcome of weight even when controlling for hereditary factors, and looking at the geometric mean masks this.

TLDR the same amount of exercise + number of calories in one person doesnt predict the outcome in another. Hence why at-home delivery services doesnt eliminate the need for GLP-1 drugs.

[1]: n=12 twin pairs, Bouchard et al., NEJM 1990. [2]: "Mirror image experiment", Bouchard et al., Obesity Research 1994.

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#179

Post by jtmarl1n »

Balooga wrote: post #105
arjie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Part of the reason I was eager to use retatrutide was the reversibility. Fantastic drug and entirely reversible. I self-tested and the effects I had on it were reversed entirely in its absence. Similar to caffeine or amphetamine at the doses I have tried (which are not high), removing the intervention resulted in a return to a prior state over a fairly short period. I'd say that, in general, some of the…

The side effect of drastic muscle loss isn't quickly reversible though. Because muscle is about 3x as expensive to maintain as fat, unless you are on some major strength training to maintain, muscle is the very first thing that your body gets rid of when losing weight. So now you are off the GLP-1. But you also have to eat fewer calories to maintain a calorie deficit because you no longer have all that calorie burnin…

Are these factual claims? Seems a little fuzzy to me.

Re: Study links GLP-1 drugs to bigger jump in women's employment than a degree

#180

Post by true_religion »

sokoloff wrote: post #169
altairprime wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The study also paints this as "kind of unfair against women", but didn't include men at all. Unfairness found against one segment is not negated by studying only one segment, and “but” is a load-bearing word representing your entire one-word claim. Please explain in more words what argument you’re supporting with your two observations?

If I read a medical paper that concluded and headlined that “cancer kills left-handed patients” but studied only left-handed patients, I might think the study was technically correct but still reasonably wonder if the left-handedness is relevant to the study’s results.

Entering the parenting field, I read a lot of studies which only involved women. It seemed reasonable: if you have a child, there's almost always a female parent that can be asked to include in the study, and women receive/need maternity leave so can more easily participate in studies especially those that start in the hospital itself.

While reading the studies, I had to assume that they were applicable to men too but I didn't know for sure.

More recently, in the EU, they've been replicating those same studies using fathers (e.g. parental attachment to newborns following skin-to-skin), and finding out that yes the results hold true for men.

It's important to include both genders, but lacking that... we can assume the same effects are true.

Post reply on HN