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

Peptides: where to begin?

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 431 posts

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#221

Post by Tarq0n »

bsder wrote: post #72
hombre_fatal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of people on GLP-1 meds and even took a dose myself out of curiosity. You take a dose every two weeks. And if you accidentally double dose because you misread 1U to mean 1 dose, it just gives you some nausea. Are we going to pretend it's hard to take this drug now too? Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on? Remember to eat. That's it. I guess a few people might need the doctor…

> Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on beyond a couple questions they ask you in your visit? Remember to eat. That's it. Apparently we have forgotten people who died from eating disorders (previously called anorexia nervosa)? There is a VAST difference between someone who weighs 300lbs asking for GLP-1 to combat morbidity and someone who is barely 100lbs asking for a GLP-1 to take off weig…

That sounds like people making an informed decision about their body to me. Doctors don't need to be inserted into every risky decision.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#222

Post by stingraycharles »

simonklitj wrote: post #220
BoggleOhYeah wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence. HN, in particular, loves anything that allows them to discredit science (like the constant banging on about the replication crisis) and replace it with their own pet theory.

Is HN particularly drawn to this over other platforms? I gotta say I don’t quite recognize this. In general, I think there’s a good dose of respect for science around these parts, but maybe I’m blind to it.

I don’t think HN discredits science a lot, especially when compared to other platforms.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#223

Post by staticassertion »

flexagoon wrote: post #219
ggm wrote: post #182

I'm here for two probably contradictory comments. The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher…

For the first one, I assume you mean a systematic review, not a peer review? I guess you're talking about this one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180699/ It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?

I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#224

Post by staticassertion »

kube-system wrote: post #43
hombre_fatal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think access is a good thing. The issue isn't with telemedicine but the fact that there's a prescription wall for helpful meds like GLP-1 in a country where we've failed people by creating one of the worst food environments. Also, most doctor's visits aren't any different from getting it if you want it except it's gated on the mood/attitude of the doctor, maybe your ability to sell some sob story. And then you book…

GLP-1 prescriptions are easy to get in the US. It's filling the prescription that is the problem, because insurance rarely covers it and it is beyond the disposable income of most Americans. The prescription hurdle is absolutely necessary -- these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance. It's the price that needs to be fixed.

> these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance.

Unless that risk is egregious, informed adults should be able to accept it if they so choose.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#225

Post by flexagoon »

XorNot wrote: post #74
dc396 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very safe and tolerable. Can you point to the clinical trials that demonstrate this? > Doctors seem to be giving GLP peptides out like candy and those are injected. There have been several _thousand_ clinical trials that have shown GLP-1s to be safe and effective.

Also LOL at the notion "peptides are safe because GLP-1 exists". Pretty much all venoms are mixes of short (10-15 base) peptide chains. It's the naturalistic fallacy in an utterly perverse form ( and also goes to show why a regulatory system is good: the average person has no idea that they're dealing with or even common sense about it).

"Liquids are safe because water exists"

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#226

Post by staticassertion »

arjie wrote: post #213

I used retatrutide for weight loss and went from 199.3 lbs to just under 175 lbs. I kept daily notes through the process. Here's a quick AI one-paragraph summary if you're curious: https://pastebin.com/XACNYKvs Overall I'm quite pleased with the effects and many of the properties of this treatment that people dislike are actually properties I was looking for. Essentially, for pharmacological interventions I want impe…

Was cost the reason you went for it over tirzepitide? I feel like retatrutide is still way too early to mess with, it's giving me real "vioxx" vibes of messing with too much at once.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#227

Post by ndr »

deng wrote: post #192
cjbgkagh wrote: post #65

Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work (for various people for various conditions). There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. Now with the ability to collect and search large amounts of empirical data and communicate it peer-to-peer people are picking up on a lot of things that work without knowi…

> There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. This is a deeply unfair statement, and also a false dichotomy. Medical science is of course empiric. What you call "fundamentalism" is that compounds need to undergo a rigorous regiment of empiric testing before they are given to potentially millions of people. And no, it's not just because of Thalidomi…

I think the grandparent meant "fundamentalism" as "mechanistic", and lots of things we can know (as you say using the scientific method) to be useful long before we have a good mechanistic explanation of how they work.

Some examples: aspirin (willow bark used for thousands of years, drug synthesized in 1897 and mechanism explained almost 100y later), or general anesthesia used again since mid 1800s and the mechanism is quite still debated.

This is not to downplay all the long term, or developmental, risks that using something novel can result in. But we can empirically know something about the effects without having good mechanistic models.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#228

Post by arjie »

staticassertion wrote: post #226
arjie wrote: post #213

I used retatrutide for weight loss and went from 199.3 lbs to just under 175 lbs. I kept daily notes through the process. Here's a quick AI one-paragraph summary if you're curious: https://pastebin.com/XACNYKvs Overall I'm quite pleased with the effects and many of the properties of this treatment that people dislike are actually properties I was looking for. Essentially, for pharmacological interventions I want impe…

Was cost the reason you went for it over tirzepitide? I feel like retatrutide is still way too early to mess with, it's giving me real "vioxx" vibes of messing with too much at once.

No, I had access to free tirzepatide. I chose retatrutide because early results seemed promising and safe and since I was going to run a short-term self-trial I wanted the most effective peptide.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#229

Post by fp64 »

picafrost wrote: post #187

[flagged]

Is there any evidence supporting the claim there is a significant overlap between the group of people who "refuse injections the government recommends" and the group of people who take "peptides"? The article is carefully crafted to evoke this impression without clearly stating it, listing only anecdotal evidence.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#230

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

staticassertion wrote: post #223
flexagoon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the first one, I assume you mean a systematic review, not a peer review? I guess you're talking about this one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180699/ It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?

I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.

Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.

...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class. As are certain milk tripeptides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactotripeptides

Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.

Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...

Post reply on HN