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

251–260 of 431 posts

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#251

Post by aduwah »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #241
steveBK123 wrote: post #238

I think we are sort of in the worst of both worlds right now re: medicines/supplements/gray market. FDA approval is expensive slow process. Doctors train for a long time and then work 40+ years entire careers, some without a ton of continuing education. But then we have an entire gray market because enough legal and practical loopholes to drive a freight train through, such that people are self medicating with dubiou…

> some without a ton of continuing education. Where did you get this idea? I did a simple, five second Google search and learned that on average, US doctors are required to complete about 50 hours of continuing education for each one- to two-year recert cycle. (On HN, I also hear similar complaints about public school teachers. It isn't true. Public school teachers are required to do similar continuing education.)

Not US, but the seminars to fill in the hours in my country were closer to legal bribes and/or holidays in often exotic places. They usually were provided/funded by the medicine lobby.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#252

Post by throwaway2037 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139
hammock wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people don't believe it anyway Maybe because so much of it is wrong, or (very charitably, as much is industry-biased) outdated? Lifestyle modification is a definite challenge and I’m not dismissing it. Still, hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer. Overeating, oxidative stress from low-quality ingredients, etc might.

> hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer They absolutely do, particularly if you're getting most of your calories from them. If evidence-based medicine doesn't convince you, uh, hamburgers and supermarket milk tends to be processed.

I agree 100% with your follow-up. In the last 30 years of medical research, I do not recall anything but negative health results from eating red meat (beef). The real culprit is saturated fat. It is the cigarettes of food. There is almost no healthy level to consume, so keep it to 20g per day or less.

Reading this chain of responses from the original is making my internal bullshit alarm (Brandolini's law) go "wee woo wee woo".

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#253

Post by throwaway2037 »

stouset wrote: post #144
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer They absolutely do, particularly if you're getting most of your calories from them. If evidence-based medicine doesn't convince you, uh, hamburgers and supermarket milk tends to be processed.

They absolutely do not, unless you’re getting too many calories. Individual foods are—with some exceptions—neither bad for you nor good for you. A healthy diet can occasionally include doughnuts, and milkshakes. Your overall diet is what matters.

Most green vegetables you can eat unlimited amount and stay healthy. They are absolutely "good" food. (Please don't reply with something trite like "oh, but what about the pesticide residues?") The same can be said for high fiber (soluable and insoluable) fruits like apples, oranges, and bananas. As long as eaten whole (minus skin for oranges and bananas), it is almost impossible to overeat these and they are absolutely "good" foods.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#254

Post by throwaway2037 »

hammock wrote: post #38
cwmoore wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When medicine ignores nutrition entirely, and nutrient supplements are still complete unknowns, you have to wonder who the FDA is working for.

You don’t have to wonder. It’s public record that 45% of the FDA’s budget incomes from user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug. In the drug division specifically, the number is about 75%.

Naive question: What is wrong with this? Lots of gov't agencies in highly developed countries operate similarly. User fees account for a non-trivial portion of department budgets. A more simple example: Should the Dept of Motor Vehicles (DMV) charge zero, low, medium, high, or infinity money to get a driver's license?

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#255

Post by nozzlegear »

keiferski wrote: post #191
picafrost wrote: post #187

[flagged]

It has a certain logic to it, and I think US tipping culture basically follows the same rules. Even if you almost always end up paying the bill + 20% tip, Americans like the idea that they could not pay the tip if the service was bad. The appearance of free action is appealing and preferable to being forced to pay the extra amount, even if you almost always pay the amount willingly anyway.

I actually like tipping culture because it makes me feel generous and charitable, not because there's some kind of weird master/servant relationship. I even make it a point to passive aggressively tip well when service sucks because who gives a shit?

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#256

Post by oa335 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #231
fp64 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

RFK Jr using the blue dye stuff for one thing

“Blue dye stuff” meaning methylene blue? Ironically that is one of the most extensively studied compounds in medicine, with hundreds of clinical trials over 100 years…

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#257

Post by mft_ »

spacewrangler wrote: post #240
fireflash38 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the entire Joe Rogan sphere with being anti vax (or vax skeptical)... While promoting a billion supplements.

*anti untested vaccines - people should be skeptical of untested vaccines, just like peptides.

Indeed, but that’s not the point: many anti-vaxxers are against all vaccines, irrespective of how they were tested. (And will argue against e.g. the FRA approvals.)

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#258

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #210
keiferski wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has a certain logic to it, and I think US tipping culture basically follows the same rules. Even if you almost always end up paying the bill + 20% tip, Americans like the idea that they could not pay the tip if the service was bad. The appearance of free action is appealing and preferable to being forced to pay the extra amount, even if you almost always pay the amount willingly anyway.

In my experience, everyone who defends tipping culture is defending not paying the tip. I don't buy this idea that someone likes tipping culture and still pays it. After all, you're free to tip anyone you want regardless of culture.

[deleted]

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#259

Post by diath »

meiuqer wrote: post #135
diath wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I go to a gym that has IFBB pros and people competing on elite powerlifting level, steroid and peptide use is an every day chit chat topic.

That does not seem like an environment we should use to determine if the rest of the world should take a substance lol

But I'm not saying everyone should be taking these peptides, I'm not coercing anyone, my original point was that people like the author of the article should mind their own business what other people choose to do with their own bodies.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#260

Post by oa335 »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #230
staticassertion wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-ric…

> 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

Do you know of any studies that suggest BPC-157 absorption from gut?

Post reply on HN