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

421–430 of 461 posts

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

#421

Post by s1artibartfast »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #410
Wytwwww wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> broccoli Have almost no carbs or any calories, they are basically just water. Like you'd need to eat 1kg just to get 300 calories (less than in e.g. 100g chickpeas).

They are 75% carbs. Don't miss the point in your focus on one thing that I said. Replace it with sweet potatoes, carrots, and any other health promoting vegetable that Americans don't eat (and when they do, without slathering in sugar/fat).

How are you getting 75%? I see 10g of garbs in 150g of broccoli. That is closer to 7%.

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

#422

Post by Kirby64 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #417
Kirby64 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? The intake is easy to measure. The outtake is empirically knowable by change in weight over time. It’s really that simple.

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

#423

Post by cthalupa »

snozolli wrote: post #415
cthalupa wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I think you should go let the whole natural bodybuilding community that they're doing it wrong, as well all of the PhDs specializing in exercise science, including both the naturals and not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCpeRdUkegE can walk you through a handful of the latest studies.

You need to be in a caloric surplus to efficiently build muscle mass regardless of whether or not you're natural. I'm honestly confused how this is even an argument we're having. No one is saying you need to eat in 5000 calorie surplus as a natural, but everyone still refers to the period where you are in a caloric surplus as a bulk and a period where you are in a caloric deficit as a cut. This is not and has never been restricted to people on gear.

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

#424

Post by cthalupa »

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…

Whether or not it makes any sense to you, it's not a matter of any scientific debate - being in a deficit puts you in a catabolic state where the body will break down muscle mass for energy. It does it less if you have lots of protein and are providing frequent muscle stimulus.

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

#425

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Kirby64 wrote: post #422
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? The intake is easy to measure. The outtake is empirically knowable by change in weight over time. It’s really that simple.

> What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight?

Metabolic syndrom is characterised by the basal metabolic rate reducing in response to reduced calorie intake or increased caloric expenditure. In most of us this is good. It gets the immune system to quit mucking around, for instance. In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells.

You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.)

CICO reminds me of something we do in finance: burying the complexity in a magic variable. For CICO, it's the CO. Because if you decompose it into its active and inactive components. Exercise is the former. But the latter absolutely dominates that term.

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

#426

Post by cthalupa »

thefz wrote: post #402
lenerdenator wrote: post #316

I was wondering when the other shoe would drop. These drugs are turning into a band-aid on the fact that it's more profitable to sell addictive, high-calorie foods in the US than foods that promote long-term health. We'll decay people's heart muscles before we put a tax on unhealthy food to help fund Medicare and Medicaid.

> These drugs are turning into a band-aid on the fact that it's more profitable to sell addictive, high-calorie foods in the US than foods that promote long-term health. What I don't understand about these drugs is: Ok, you are taking the medicine to lose weight, but are you eating the same shit as before in the process? The answer is always "pfft no, I am going to eat healthier" So why don't you just eat healthier n…

> So why don't you just eat healthier now?

I used to be you - in most of my 20s, I found it very easy to just eat well, east less, etc. It didn't take any willpower on my part to be fit. It was trivial. I didn't understand why fat people didn't just do the same things I was doing. I thought they had to want to be fat!

Then I got busy with other things, I had less and less free time, fast food, etc. got more and more convenient. Then the pandemic happened and I started just ordering uber eats twice a day. And suddenly I realized "holy shit, I'm fucking fat."

And then I tried to go back to my earlier habits, and it was hard. Things that took zero willpower on my part suddenly meant spending a significant portion of my day fighting different urges.

Was it within my power to do so? Sure, in theory. Everyone, given no other task to do but focus their willpower on just not eating too much, could likely eat healthier and lose weight. But that's not reality, it's difficult, and it ends up slipping down the priority list behind a dozen or two other things.

But on tirzepatide, my relationship with food nearly immediately reverted back to how it was when I was younger.

The fact of the matter is, America has a huge amount of obese people that know they shouldn't be and know in theory that fixing their diet and exercising would resolve their issues. And yet they still are fat. Very very very few of them want to be that way. And the reason is it is hard to just eat healthier when you have that level of food craving

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

#427

Post by Jensson »

beejiu wrote: post #403
thefz wrote: post #401

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, 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…

I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I think the prevailing theory is it being a survival mechanism. When our ancestors faced famine, it makes sense for the body to shed as much muscle as possible, since this reduces the metabolic rate in the medium-long term. Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Although fat can be used up for energy more readily, but muscle takes more energy to maintain. Burning fat ju…

Could just be its for winter where you don't need to move much for a few months, otherwise normally you need that muscle to gather food even when starving, someone has to gather it and it wont be someone who shed most of their muscle.

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

#428

Post by cthalupa »

hollerith wrote: post #416
cthalupa wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No one is disputing that you can restore glycogen or water weight quickly.

But the issue is all of the studies I have looked at look at total FFM which does include the loss there. If you are on these GLP-1s there is water weight you are going to lose and keep off while on them due to the anti-inflammation effects, etc., and that water weight is going to be part of their calculations of FFM that has been lost.

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

#430

Post by thefz »

cthalupa wrote: post #424
thefz wrote: post #401

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, 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…

Whether or not it makes any sense to you, it's not a matter of any scientific debate - being in a deficit puts you in a catabolic state where the body will break down muscle mass for energy. It does it less if you have lots of protein and are providing frequent muscle stimulus.

Source?
Post reply on HN