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

291–300 of 431 posts

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#291

Post by DebtDeflation »

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…

>compounds need to undergo a rigorous regiment of empiric testing before they are given to potentially millions of people

Particularly when the mechanism behind most of these peptides comes down to "promotes more rapid cell growth". The intent may be to repair the skin, muscles, or ligaments, but biology is rarely that specific.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#292

Post by dcherman »

rootusrootus wrote: post #101
olalonde wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost muscle because you lost around 1.54% of body weight per week, which is way too aggressive. The maximum recommended amount for losing weight while retaining muscle is around 1%. You will also most likely experience a weight rebound.

Hasn't this mostly been debunked? You lose muscle mass because you lost mass overall, and whether you lost it too quickly or not is not the major factor. AFAIK maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is borderline impossible for anyone who isn't extremely fat and/or very disproportionate composition to begin with.

You need to define how much muscle mass you expect to lose. The entire idea behind the bulk/cut cycle is that you want to net gain muscle after a full diet cycle.

It's also not borderline impossible to maintain the majority of your muscle mass, but it depends on how you eat and train. We don't know enough about the person above's diet, training, current body composition, etc. to say anything for certain.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#293

Post by pruetj »

steveBK123 wrote: post #233
throwaway27448 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is it is so ingrained in US culture that switching to tip-free has generally failed where tried, even in pro-labor lefty hoods in blue cities. Numerous restaurants in NYC tried and flipped back over the last 10 years. Restauranteurs reported illogical / innumerate behavior where sales went down when they switched to untipped higher prices. https://www.eater.com/21398973/restaurant-no-tipping-movemen... Th…

I remember when Uber first came to Austin, one of the big draws was that a tip wasn't expected. The app didn't even allow it IIRC and Uber sort of advertised this as a feature. 15 years later, back to it, tips seem expected again?

Oddly enough, the fact that I was initially sold a product where a tip wasn't expected has made me continue to not tip Uber drivers. Not sure what that says about me.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#294

Post by mchusma »

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…

When people talk about peptides, they typically mean either (1) GLP compounds like Reta that have successful phase 3 trial data and will be approved or (2) stuff like 157 which has no evidence or plausible mechanism to work.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#295

Post by brokensegue »

nick3000 wrote: post #287
elil17 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to think that freshly squeezed juice is chemically different from, for example, frozen juice concentrate?

yes it’s been frozen and concentrated..

You can freeze and concentrate a substance without chemically altering it

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#296

Post by dmschulman »

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.)

Taking continuing education credits to check a box for retaining professional licensure and educating yourself about emerging and novel concepts in your field are two vastly different things. If anything, CE helps professionals update their knowledge base regarding existing processes and procedures.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#297

Post by dmschulman »

mft_ wrote: post #261
throwaway2037 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why?

Your internal organs can't keep up with that kind of mass fluctuation, for one. Keep an eye on your kidneys.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#298

Post by hammock »

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.

Agreed (remember where I said overeating). Non-homogenized gently pasteurized milk/cream with minimally processed honey or maple syrup, and fresh ground hamburger, all of which which you can definitely get at supermarkets by the way, are much better for you than Big Macs and McFlurries. Ask yourself why? It’s obviously not “because they aren’t hamburgers and milkshakes”

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#299

Post by throwaway2037 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #172
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.

Nutrition is run on fads - see whole fitness and healthy food bullshit. Nutrition supplements ended up being a loophole that allows pharmacies and pharma companies to sell all kinds of random stuff that they can't or don't want to, show is safe, or doing anything at all.

    > Nutrition is run on fads - see whole fitness and healthy food bullshit.
You raise an interesting point. I watched a YouTube video recently of someone walking around a large US supermarket pointing out all of the processed foods that now claimed to be high protein. It is nuts!

I wonder what will come after the protein boom? My guess: Fiber is back because you need to "fibermaxx" when taking GLP-1 antagonists. I can remember some of the funny adverts in the 1980s of old people taking fiber supplements to "stay regular". (See SNL comedy skit "Colon Blow" for a good laugh.)

Post reply on HN