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

Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

trial.medpath.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 868 posts

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#401

Post by degamad »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #181
XorNot wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you ate 100 calories of pop tarts every hour you're awake for total of 1800 calories... At the end of the month you'd be fatter. This is thermodynamically impossible unless your daily calorie use is less then 1800 calories.

Are you saying raising your insulin levels hourly, 18 times a day, will not do anything to your metabolism? Did you even read my post, or did you just instantly reply with the same pedantic reply which my post was specifically meant to address?

> Are you saying raising your insulin levels hourly, 18 times a day, will not do anything to your metabolism?

What metabolic effect do you expect from raising your insulin levels hourly?

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#402

Post by rkomorn »

ses1984 wrote: post #297
c4ptnjack wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The zeitgeist has pushed the idea carbs/grains and sugar are terrible over the last 40 years on and off, so that seems to say more about the medical industrial complex, than anything. That's fair, but if that message has been pushed so consistently, why didn't we see a real decrease in the consumption of those things and the associated weight loss?

Because carbs taste great.

I can confirm.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#403

Post by worldsayshi »

42772827 wrote: post #258
nradov wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why waste money and risk side effects for a drug that's not actually needed? Changing your habits is much easier.

If changing habits were much easier, then people wouldn't be using the drug to make it easier change their habits. They would just do it.

> They would just do it.

Telling your mind to do a thing is only ever easy in retrospect and when you find a "trick" that works for you. For some people that trick is getting clear feedback about glucose levels in your bloodstream. But any trick that works for one person might not work for the next. So it is good that there are many approaches.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#404

Post by procaryote »

Spooky23 wrote: post #315
DharmaPolice wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every person I know who tried to give up smoking has the same story - they were successful for a while and then they encountered some stressful moment (exam, work deadline, etc) and they fell off the wagon. One explanation could simply be that normally we have food stresses which manifests in general stress which we relieve via video games or whatever else. If these drugs turn down the volume of hunger then maybe thi…

I’ve taken a GLP for two years. It resets your dopamine reward system. It helped me lose 80 lbs and I’m running now. Zero craving for alcohol and sugar. But, my libido is like 3x lol. If some rando internet dude thinks I’m weak or stupid, fine with me. It’s a drug that has improved my life in ways that are difficult to describe.

As a rando internet dude, that just sounds like you found medication that works for you. That's great!

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#405

Post by biosboiii »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #291
glp1guide wrote: post #286

If you think Ozempic (Semaglutide) is good, Retatrutide is going to blow it out of the water: https://glp1.guide/content/a-new-glp1-retatrutide/ Currently the only people experimenting with it are the underground gray market peptide enthusiasts (you can find them on reddit and elsewhere), but the results are quite intense. [EDIT] Just to be clear, gray market Retatrutide is illegal, I'm not encouraging you to buy it…

What's the difficulty level of obtaining Retatrutide through non traditional channels?

difficulty level: google search

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#406

Post by ifwinterco »

globular-toast wrote: post #371
glp1guide wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely illegal -- the drug is not for sale, obviously is not FDA approved, and is not manufactured anywhere, the only safe/legal way to get it is a via an ongoing trial: https://trials.lilly.com/en-US/trial/580035 As one might imagine though, capitalism found a way. A LOT of compounding pharmacies are now very good at manufacturing GLP1s (not necessarily the case that the knowledge transfers, but I imagine n…

Why is it illegal? Are drugs illegal by default or has it been specifically controlled/scheduled? I looked up which drugs are scheduled in the UK and found the list is about 100x longer than I thought it was and in fact the government don't even publish a definitive and exhaustive list of all substances.

At least in the UK, drugs are legal by default in the sense that a specific chemical has to be classified under the misuse of drugs act to be a "drug".

However, specific classes of drugs (synthetic cannabinoids and substituted phenylethylamines etc.) are banned in their entirety by designer drug legislation. This is to stop people producing stuff like mephedrone etc., because there's an almost endless potential for minor chemical substitutions while still retaining the effects.

AFAIK peptides are not covered by any of that legislation, so they are a grey area, hence why they get sold as "research chemicals" "not for human use" etc. Separately it's probably illegal to produce patented drugs like semaglutide through non-official channels, but that would be a civil/commercial matter, not a drugs offence per se

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#407

Post by anal_reactor »

some_random wrote: post #15

I find it fascinating how much a pretty large group of people just hate semaglutides and seemingly need to believe that it's some kind of Faustian bargain. I'm not talking about the people who are cautious or suspicious, that's more than reasonable, but it's clear that it's not cautious optimism in many.

I think Ozempic is just a symbol of what modern life looks like. Obesity is a problem that 100% could be solved with a cultural shift (see Japan), but instead we decide to use medicine. It's like, humanity at large grew such big brains because there was evolutionary pressure to be intelligent, but now we're using intelligence to remove that pressure. Which would make sense if we redirected that intelligence to something else, but we don't.

I think the reason why we don't see aliens is that intelligent life isn't sustainable long-term, and there's a long list of reasons why intelligence leads to self-destruction.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#408

Post by tirant »

cthalupa wrote: post #310
nradov wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why waste money and risk side effects for a drug that's not actually needed? Changing your habits is much easier.

This is such an absurd statement. If changing your habits was much easier then we wouldn't need these medications and the world wouldn't keep getting fatter. People have known how to not be fat for a long time, yet the obesity rate has been rising worldwide, even in countries that have traditionally been skinny. It's not like fat people on the whole are ignorant of how to become not-fat and never attempt to do so.

Because people are choosing deliberately to get pleasure to eat unhealthy stuff instead of being healthy. And that’s a reasonable thing to do. Immediate pleasure trumps future hypothetical gains.

And it’s exactly the same situation with financial education, debt, university degrees, or in general any long term endeavors that requires the sacrifice of the immediate pleasure.

Of course, we still have a non trivial percentage of people that suffer from eating disorders, and use food as a way to emotionally regulate themselves because that’s what they learned as children (child is unhappy, give him a candy…).

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#409

Post by johncolanduoni »

djtango wrote: post #378
johncolanduoni wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times has a drug had negative effects that only showed up after 10-20 years? Out of all the drugs that have been widely prescribed in, say, the last 100 years? And it’s not even actually a new drug class - Liraglutide was approved in 2010! Should we wait until the clinical trial participants all die of old age until we put a drug on the market?

Most the nonpharmaceuticals I could list from memory, I had to google the medication Nonpharmaceuticals - microplastics - bisphenol A - asbestos - nicotine - DDT - fungicides like HCB - PFAS Pharmaceutical - benzodiazepines - Terfenadine - Benfluorex Of the 528 new drugs approved over the period of interest, a total of 22 (4.2%) were eventually withdrawn. Between 3.9% and 4.4% of the drugs approved in each 5-year per…

I wasn’t talking about non-pharmaceuticals, and neither were you. Non-pharmaceuticals don’t go through clinical trials, and they mostly don’t require any pre-approval. So that’s clearly just trying to pad your list.

Benzodiazepines do not have effects that only suddenly show up after 10-20 years of use. The serious side effects/withdrawal show up with a few months of heavy use, sometimes sooner. They’re also actively prescribed (with some appropriate caution), so a really weird one to lead with.

There are actually quite a few drugs still widely prescribed today that cause similar QT prolongation to terfenadine (e.g. quetiapine). The difference is they are for more serious conditions where the other options have similarly serious side effects, and terfenadine has to compete with Benadryl. No reason to have to get periodic EKGs just to keep your sinuses decongested in allergy season.

> Of the 528 new drugs approved over the period of interest, a total of 22 (4.2%) were eventually withdrawn. Between 3.9% and 4.4% of the drugs approved in each 5-year period were eventually withdrawn (χ2 = 0.04, p = 0.99 for difference among 5-year periods). The median time between approval and withdrawal was 1271 days (interquartile range 706–2876).[0]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you just didn’t care to read the paper once you assumed it agreed with you and did not selectively quote on purpose. From the same paper:

> Of the 22 drugs withdrawn, 11 first had a serious safety warning and 11 did not (Table 2). The median time between the Notice of Compliance and withdrawal was 1271 days (interquartile range 706–2876).

So, the percentage you quoted was double what we were actually talking about here. On top of that, I don’t think you finished reading what you did quote; the median time to withdrawal was > those users could have chosen lifestyle intervention

We’ve been trying all kinds of “lifestyle interventions” for a long time, from doctors telling people to exercise to semi-organized campaigns of body shaming. It hasn’t worked for the vast majority of people in practice. So unless you have some actually novel idea here, you’re essentially trying to get people to switch from a drug that works to the power of positive thinking. Good luck with that.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#410

Post by wiseowise »

mnky9800n wrote: post #384
throwup238 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them? There are several reasons: Chimps have a higher density of testosterone receptors with a higher sensitivity than humans. Compared to humans, they are essentially roided out all the time. Humans are also hairless endurance hunters so we naturally have much larger fat reserves (15-25% of…

We also live on average more than twice as long as the average chimpanzee.

And average human isn’t spending as much time exercising as chimp does.
Post reply on HN