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

411–420 of 461 posts

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

#411

Post by cyberax »

metafunctor wrote: post #273
cyberax wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the people who lift weights while on this/these drugs, how much lean muscle do they lose? I was 92kg when I started on liraglutide (I was doing GLP-1 agonists before it was cool!) and 67% of muscle mass (61kg). I'm now at 69kg and 82% of muscle mass (56kg). I'm doing weight and resistance training twice a week, in addition to aerobic training. One nice thing, while muscles don't become more massive, they for su…

Those muscle mass percentages cannot be right. How were they measured?

Just the total mass minus the fat mass. Any further breakdown is not particularly useful.

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

#412

Post by cyberax »

scotty79 wrote: post #264
cyberax wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the people who lift weights while on this/these drugs, how much lean muscle do they lose? I was 92kg when I started on liraglutide (I was doing GLP-1 agonists before it was cool!) and 67% of muscle mass (61kg). I'm now at 69kg and 82% of muscle mass (56kg). I'm doing weight and resistance training twice a week, in addition to aerobic training. One nice thing, while muscles don't become more massive, they for su…

I'd bet you are stronger now despite slightly lower muscle mass. Probably the muscle tissue people lose first are crappy cells. Weak, nonfunctional, senescent or even maybe some muscle embedded fat.

Muscle cells don't get replaced or cleaned. Like neurons, they basically stick around throughout the whole life.

Instead, it's the cells themselves that grow bigger or smaller.

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

#413

Post by pogue »

notesinthefield wrote: post #405
pogue wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell if you're retaining muscle with that combination? Is this a doctor prescribed protocol or a DIY stack?

I have had three major bouts of weightloss so I can say with some confidence im retaining muscle in my lower body (because of the return to running) but have lost a lot in my chest and back from the significant reduction in heavy lifting but the muscle definition is better. This is almost exactly what we expected to happen and yes, Im working with an actual sports focused md. Insurance costs for HRT and wegovy were t…

You might consider doing some body fat vs muscle ratio comparison tests. There are 3 methods that give pretty good results. DEXA, Bod Pod & Hydrostatic weighing. I never investigated it much, but I had a buddy who tried all three & felt hydrostatic was the best and most affordable.

I don't know if these are the best resources, I only gave them a cursory glance. The summary does a good job.

AI Summary (Brave Searc) - Hydrostatic, DEXA, Bod Pod Comparison https://search.brave.com/search?q=hydrostatic+weighing+vs+de...

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

#414

Post by snozolli »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #380
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…

Are you claiming that a drug free person can gain as much muscle mass while in a calorie deficit as while in a calorie surplus? If so, I would be very curious to that reference.

What an utterly ridiculous extrapolation. These comments are exhausting. Bulking and cutting have a specific meaning, and it doesn't just mean eating at a sufficient caloric surplus to sustain muscle growth. That's simply called eating enough.

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

#415

Post by snozolli »

cthalupa wrote: post #386
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…

Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles. Outside of noob gains it is incredibly difficult for a natural to add muscle mass when in a calorie deficit and recomposition at maintenance calories is also inefficient in the vast majority of cases. They won't bulk the same way someone on gear does, but it's still the most efficient way to add muscle mass in the vast majority of cases.

Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles

No, they don't. They simply eat enough to continue muscle growth and attempt to shed fat before a competition. Any non-competitor doing this is just engaging in quasi-religious nonsense or rationalizing a bad diet.

Bulking and cutting have meaning, and we're not going to turn it into any caloric surplus vs deficit.

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

#416

Post by hollerith »

cthalupa wrote: post #193
hollerith wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, GP is talking about losing muscle itself, not the glycogen in muscle.

Well, these studies look at FFM, which does include your water weight and glycogen stores, so they do make up a portion of it.

The point is that there is a big difference between depleting the store of glycogen, which can reliably be refilled in about 2 hours and the body's disassembling half the muscle mass, which takes many months to build back up if you even can build it back up to the original mass (unlikely if you are old).

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

#417

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Kirby64 wrote: post #404
unshavedyak wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it likely is just as simple as their metabolism is such that they burn more calories than the average person. Population variation will always lead to some people with outliers both in high expenditure and low expenditure. That's the point though. I'm saying that we burn calories at different rates. We burn fat at different rates. We have different rates of addiction, cravings, etc. Just saying CICO is the same bor…

> The fact is, the point is, CICO ignores all the real challenges and thereby all the real problems people need to understand and face. I think we'll have to disagree here. At the end of the day CICO is the formula. That obviously doesn't account for the human factor in regards to the adherenace rate, but it does, fully encompass the 'if you were a robot and were fully adherent how do you lose/gain weight' method. >…

> CICO is the formula

This is like trying to solve aerodynamics with Newtonian physics only. It’s not useful. CICO ignores the variability of base metabolism.

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

#418

Post by nkmskdmfodf »

thefz wrote: post #401
beejiu wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even amongst traditional calorie deficits, rapid weight loss results in greater loss of muscle mass when compared to gradual weight loss, even if you lose the same amount of mass overall. I.e. you keep more muscle losing 0.5 lbs a week over 40 weeks than 2 lbs a week over 10 weeks.

> Even amongst traditional calorie deficits, rapid weight loss results in greater loss of muscle mass when compared to gradual weight loss, This does not make any sense. Why would the body prefer anything over the most dense and available calorie store? Protein in muscle gives shit calories per gram, it is hard to build back and generally less available than fat: the number one energy store, doing exactly what it doe…

Because the body can only extract so much energy per minute from all of the fat in your body. If that's not enough, muscle is used, etc.

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

#420

Post by s1artibartfast »

snozolli wrote: post #414
s1artibartfast wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming that a drug free person can gain as much muscle mass while in a calorie deficit as while in a calorie surplus? If so, I would be very curious to that reference.

What an utterly ridiculous extrapolation. These comments are exhausting. Bulking and cutting have a specific meaning, and it doesn't just mean eating at a sufficient caloric surplus to sustain muscle growth. That's simply called eating enough.

I think you misread my comment.
Post reply on HN