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

Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

ualberta.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 461 posts

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#341

Post by hollerith »

MrMcCall wrote: post #340
vundercind wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body; it's thermodynamics and biochemistry and hard as hell as we get older, especially when poor. 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…

>I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body

That is like dismissing a bug report because "it works fine on my machine", though.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#342

Post by vundercind »

MrMcCall wrote: post #340
vundercind wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body; it's thermodynamics and biochemistry and hard as hell as we get older, especially when poor. 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…

Yes, it works if you do it. No, relying on it to get a population to lose weight doesn't work, even if that population has self-selected for wanting to lose weight and you educate the hell out of them.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#344

Post by mostin »

siliconc0w wrote: post #126

It's pretty clear that GLP-1 should be prescribed with protein powder. When your appetite is crushed you don't go for the chicken breast, you go for what is immediately appetizing (usually carbs+fats like pizza or fries). IMO this and a lack of resistance training (which should also be prescribed) probably makes up a large % of the muscle loss on these drugs. The problem is that the FDA only looks at dumb measures li…

That hasn't been my experience. I've been on liraglutide (Saxenda) for a month and a half or so and if I feel like I can't finish a plate of food I'll eat just the protein and leave the carbs, where I would've eaten everything before.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#345

Post by snozolli »

ANewFormation wrote: post #277
tomhoward wrote: post #181

I'm not commenting specifically on the heart-muscle aspect of the study, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the weight loss from this drug is significantly attributable to muscle loss; it almost always is when dieting. It's the same with keto/low-carb or any other kind of caloric-restrictive dieting (which Ozempic facilitates). The modern weight-loss programs I'm seeing now (at least those aimed mostly at middle-age…

The percents are very different. For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting, unless you're a Greek Grizzly, but the total muscle loss is relatively negligible, especially when maintaining a proper high protein diet. At 40% muscle loss you're getting awful close to losing weight while increasing your body…

For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting

This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids.

[1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, Clenbuterol (literally only approved for horses in the US), DNP, and probably more that I haven't heard of. Here's an NIH article on the dangers of DNP, to put it in perspective: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3550200/

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#346

Post by sickofparadox »

snozolli wrote: post #345
ANewFormation wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percents are very different. For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting, unless you're a Greek Grizzly, but the total muscle loss is relatively negligible, especially when maintaining a proper high protein diet. At 40% muscle loss you're getting awful close to losing weight while increasing your body…

For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids. [1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, C…

In order to gain more muscle mass, at some point you need to be in a caloric surplus. You can't make something out of nothing - your body needs the extra resources to make itself bigger.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#347

Post by automatic6131 »

snozolli wrote: post #345
ANewFormation wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percents are very different. For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting, unless you're a Greek Grizzly, but the total muscle loss is relatively negligible, especially when maintaining a proper high protein diet. At 40% muscle loss you're getting awful close to losing weight while increasing your body…

For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids. [1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, C…

The most important cutting aids are the same ones in bulking - AAS like testosterone and its close (cheaper) variants like trenbolone and methylated testosterone but yeah, the interesting chemicals are featured too.

Most natural bodybuilders recommend the 'clean bulk' where one simply eats the same cutting foods but in larger proportions. And also not to be too strict in general - that way lies disordered eating, binges, purges etc.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#348

Post by unshavedyak »

MrMcCall wrote: post #340
vundercind wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body; it's thermodynamics and biochemistry and hard as hell as we get older, especially when poor. 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…

> I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body; it's thermodynamics and biochemistry and hard as hell as we get older, especially when poor.

No one is questioning CICO.

The part being questioned is why it's more difficult for others. For example, my wife and I share an almost identical diet and activity level, yet i struggle to keep weight on and she struggles to keep weight off and with similar lifestyles. CICO works of course, but not only do our bodies innately do different things with the calories that they process but we simply experience that world differently.

I could drop down to unhealthily thin levels without even trying. She would be in misery even trying to maintain my weight.

This isn't an excuse necessarily. Rather just saying there's a lot of information beyond simple CICO that we're missing. Complexity in biome, addictive behaviors, and a full on assault from the food industry.

The ease i have in weight loss is not due to my own efforts. Thin people shouldn't break their arm patting themselves on the back, because imo it's usually not due to our own will.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#349

Post by Funes- »

sickofparadox wrote: post #346
snozolli wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids. [1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, C…

In order to gain more muscle mass, at some point you need to be in a caloric surplus. You can't make something out of nothing - your body needs the extra resources to make itself bigger.

You do know that your metabolism can pull energy out of your fat storages, right? And that metabolism is extremely flexible and adaptable, to be sure? Your body certainly isn't pulling out a calculator every night before you go to sleep to determine whether you've eaten in excess or not for the day, and then deciding to build muscle or not based on that alone. That's ridiculously simplistic, and wrong. It's a multitude of processes working constantly, and factors like exercise, protein intake or adaptation to ketosis, just to name a few, are of the utmost importance. Some people tend to think of the human metabolism as a calorimeter, when it couldn't be farther from it.

Re: Weight-loss drug found to shrink muscle in mice, human cells

#350

Post by mslack616 »

I'm a fan of open bodybuilding, so I've been following the Ozempic usage trend for a while now. Given the findings on this study, I can see how it may become an essential drug on bodybuilders stacks.

Hunger reduction + supraphysiological muscle gain from steroids and growth hormone - (heart) muscle reduction = win/win?

Heart problems are one (of many) of the main problems these guys face, so I won't be surprised if Ozempic is used to kind of "balance" the effects of other drugs.

Post reply on HN