I tried retatrutide for 10 weeks, here are my results: Before: 5'7, ~182lb Bench 1rm: 315 Squat: 5x10 225 Deadlift: 5x5 315 After: same height lol, 154lb Bench 1rm: 285 Squat: 5x10 205 Deadlift: 5x5 275 Suffered some anhedonia towards the end but that went away ~1wk after stopping. Overall pretty good, not any side effects. Definitely fixed my food craving problem. I didn't have a high intake of protein during the 10…
This is crazy. You lost 28 lbs (15% of your body weight) in 10 weeks. Why did your doctor to allow you to continue? By any common sense, that is an unhealthy pace to lose body weight.
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.
>The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence.
I've been shouting this from the roof tops for years now and it's one of the biggest problems we face today. I live in a rural area and 100% of the Joe Rogan-ified men I know are mindless reactionaries. They aren't educated, they don't read books, they don't travel, heck, they barely leave the county. They think they're so smart because they say no to everything anyone else says. They never offer solutions. They never try to fix things. They barely even vote. If you say the sky is blue they will say it's green because they're just oh so smart. It's a massive massive problem.
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 see a particular strain more often here and in “rationalist”-adjacent spaces. It’s essentially anti-intellectualism dressed up as intellectual curiosity and debate.
*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.)
But you confuse that set of people with people who don’t know want to inject untested vaccines into their body.
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?
In principle there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the FDA or other testing body retains an appropriate impartiality or lack of bias (perceived or real). The issue, however, would be a lax system that allows revolving door access between the approval body and the industry that is seeking approval. Ironically, the common refrain becomes that their industry specific knowledge means they "must" be the only possible candidates for the role, which just so conveniently starts the revolving door swinging between leadership in industry and upper roles in regulatory bodies.
Lowe has a point, but the FDA has painted itself into a corner by (a) forcing up the costs and the various bureaucratic demands associated with clinical trials, (b) allowing drug advertising , but then forcing those comical "may cause death" disclaimers, both of which have become totally ubiquitous, and (c) inconsistently following its own rules, and in some cases flouting its own rules. At this point, broscience is…
The FDA didn’t push up clinical trial costs, thalidomide did.
So you are stating that there has been no change in how clinical trials are required to be run, and the associated costs, since the changes immediately following the thalidomide catastrophe?
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…
I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors. That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.
Is there any reason to think that freshly squeezed juice is chemically different from, for example, frozen juice concentrate?
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.
>The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence. I've been shouting this from the roof tops for years now and it's one of the biggest problems we face today. I live in a rural area and 100% of the Joe Rogan-ified men I know are mindless reactionaries. They aren't educated, they don't read books, they don't travel, heck, they barely leave the county. They think they're so smart because they sa…
As opposed to this, you have the mindless non-contrarians who unquestioningly believe any assertion by academia or authority, which is a problem too.
Pfft -- they're common among anyone over 30 who exercises!
> they're common among anyone over 30 who exercises They shouldn't be. If someone has chronic tendon or joint issues, that's something to discuss with a doctor and a trainer.
It's very common when people start doing a new exercise regimen. Muscles can become significantly stronger on a timescale of months, while an equivalent increase in the strength of tendons happens on a timescale of a few years. Once somebody has a few years of training under their belt, muscle mass gains are way slower and the capacity of the ligaments will have caught up and these issues go away. However, with bodybuilders and strength athletes these problems can easily come back once anabolic steroids are involved and give big muscular gains without the same level of adaptations in connective tissues.