331–340 of 461 posts
It also decreases gut motility, which helps with the intended effect of appetite suppression. Young healthy people tend to shrug at that. As an old person that takes it right off the menu even before I read about accelerated sarcopenea. Maybe it's the same effect on the peristaltic muscles.
It worked! Kind of. The first few days after every dose it had the opposite intended effect so it wasn’t worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: "...explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues..." The warning isn't that you're losing muscle during weight-loss with these drugs. It's that the ratio of muscle vs fat loss is much greater with the drugs compared to traditional weight loss methods. It's be…
>>>Losing a lot of lean mass is incredibly detrimental to your longevity and quality of life. While true, its also true that if you manage to lose substantial fat in the process, it leads to longer and better quality life
This needs a slight change in wording or clarification, depending on what you meant.
Losing substantial fat when overweight increases your chance of a longer and better quality life than if you had maintained high levels of fat. Losing substantial muscle in that process reduces your chances of the same. It's statistics and never guaranteed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbs are harder to control for many people, and less forgiving. A side effect of keto is decreased appetite. A side effect of carbs is overeating.
Only when "carbs" is a euphemism for junk food. Which probably exists because Americans don't eat carbs like beans and broccoli. And instead of eating them, they get told online that they should avoid all carbs. It's a devious euphemism that screws the people over the most that should be eating more beans and broccoli (et al).
There is no boogie man trying to scare people away from broccoli.
I'm always so baffled by warnings about losing muscle when losing weight. Of course you do! If your body is tens of pounds lighter, then you don't need the extra muscle to lug it around. This paper is about reduction in heart muscle, and of course your heart doesn't need to be as strong because there's less blood to pump and less tissue to fuel. When you gain weight, you also increase the muscles needed to carry that…
From the article: "...explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues..." The warning isn't that you're losing muscle during weight-loss with these drugs. It's that the ratio of muscle vs fat loss is much greater with the drugs compared to traditional weight loss methods. It's be…
Consider the type of confounding that occurs in studies of people losing a lot of lean mass: cachexia, restriction to bed, famine.
Traditional weight loss methods have not shown the magnitude of survival benefits wrt cardiovascular disease, joint pain, diabetic complications. Exercise is wonderful, but as a public health intervention it is not sufficient.
If anyone looks at the totality of the high quality GLP1 clinical evidence and concludes these drugs are going to cause a net reduction in longevity and quality of life, then they should step back and assess their process for evaluating information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true for an individual , but if you're looking at a population then you're seeing a situation where we have zero other solutions that are actually effective at curbing obesity. The only "natural" way to solve it is probably to overhaul our entire culture, redesign our cities and neighborhoods, et c., and that's not happening. Skinny people move to the US and get fat. They're not skinnier back in their home cou…
A person's body mass is nothing more than the combination of what a person eats and what a person does in their life. The only really effective policy is to inform people that that is the simple, honest truth of every single person, and that the quality of food we eat is important in that equation. Eat better food, be more active. Yes, it is difficult, especially for us peasants. But that is science. I hope a miracle…
It's literally not effective. As in, well-studied, isn't effective.
Again, it's the only guidance one has to go on, personally, so it's fine to hold onto that as an individual navigating the world, but it is emphatically not effective policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Add on that there is no complete understanding of this system with all the Unknown Unknowns etc and you can see why we should test this stuff better before letting hims.com just disperse it across the american populace
Yes 100%. That's why I never understood the rollout of MRNA vaccines during COVID. It's like pushing a massive code change straight to production during peak traffic and without the normal phased rollout. I totally understand where conspiracy theorists are coming from. That didn't seem right.
In hindsight they were exactly right- and they saved at least tens of million of lives by acting quickly[1].
I'm always so baffled by warnings about losing muscle when losing weight. Of course you do! If your body is tens of pounds lighter, then you don't need the extra muscle to lug it around. This paper is about reduction in heart muscle, and of course your heart doesn't need to be as strong because there's less blood to pump and less tissue to fuel. When you gain weight, you also increase the muscles needed to carry that…
Anyone can put up impressive #s on a leg pres. Try the bench press instead. No one impressed by leg press.
In regard to the oft claim of obese people being stronger or more muscular, not really. Studies show that obese people carry only a tiny extra 'lean body mass' compared to non-obese people when matched for height, age, and gender, and much of this extra mass is organs, not muscle. Otherwise, the extra weight is just water. Sometimes it is even less because obesity impairs movement, leading to muscle loss due to inactivity.
If obese people seem strong it is because the fat reduces the range of movement for certain lifts like the squat and bench press, so it's possible for obese people to put up impressive numbers owing to having to move the weight less distance. Same for pushing movements, e.g. linemen, as being heavier means more kinetic energy, but this is not the same as being stronger in the sense of more muscle output. This is why obese people are not that impressive at arm curls or grip strength relative to weight, but wirey guys can curl a lot relative to weight or have a lot of grip strength. An obvious example of this is overweight women having worse grip strength compared to men; the extra fat does nothing.
The study found that heart muscle decreased in both lean and obese mice. So any observed muscle loss might not be just from losing body mass and not having to work as hard. But if you're already lean and then go on a calorie deficit (as a result of decreased appetite from taking the drug), then muscle mass will be lost through metabolism of muscle and other tissue. Then the study states further that the proportion of…
However, this study is suggesting that semaglutide causes more muscle loss than would be expected based on calorie change alone, not just that weight loss is accompanied by muscle loss.
A lot of comments seem to be missing this critical part of the study.
I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't replicate, but what they describe isn't quite what you might assume based on some of the comments in this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A person's body mass is nothing more than the combination of what a person eats and what a person does in their life. The only really effective policy is to inform people that that is the simple, honest truth of every single person, and that the quality of food we eat is important in that equation. Eat better food, be more active. Yes, it is difficult, especially for us peasants. But that is science. I hope a miracle…
> The only really effective policy is to inform people that that is the simple, honest truth of every single person, and that the quality of food we eat is important in that equation. It's literally not effective. As in, well-studied, isn't effective. Again, it's the only guidance one has to go on, personally, so it's fine to hold onto that as an individual navigating the world, but it is emphatically not effective p…
But sure, it's not effective but only because people have a hard time fending off our cravings. It requires breaking our cycles and learning how to eat better and eat less and do something other than lay around watching tv.
As to policy: if we curbed the corps' ability to profit off our ill-health, then we'd surely be doing something positive for society. It would also be very helpful to have cleaner air and more and larger parks that are safe for one and all. What can I say, I dream big.
Personally, I recommend everyone avoid any and all refined sugar and alcohol, as they mess with our hormones and gut biome. And that's very difficult for 2024 America, evidently.