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

431–440 of 461 posts

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

#431

Post by gls2ro »

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…

(Not a doctor) My understanding is that it is more rapid to extract energy from muscle than from fat.

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

#432

Post by ChiperSoft »

kbos87 wrote: post #137

There are a lot of people here citing loss of muscle mass as a side effect of GLP-1s, when the reality is that weight loss almost always comes with muscle loss. For me, that hasn't even been the case. I'm down 40lbs on a relatively low dose of Semaglutide and my muscle mass has moderately increased over the last 6 months. The hysteria over this is totally unfounded.

Meanwhile I’ve been on ozempic since 2021 and have lost significant muscle mass despite gaining 50 pounds (the drug helps with my diabetes but does nothing to my appetite).

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

#433

Post by Terr_ »

nkmskdmfodf wrote: post #418
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…

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.

> Because the body can only extract so much energy per minute from all of the fat in your body.

Was curious about this, went hunting for some rough data, this [0] suggests every kilogram of fat held can be drawn down at ~70 food-calories per day.

So someone with 25% body fat weighting 100kg (~220lb) could draw 1750 food calories per day, which strikes me as pretty ample unless they're also adding a bunch of physical activity.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

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

#434

Post by bni »

astrange wrote: post #71
Kirby64 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the average overweight person? I disagree. The average obese person does little to no resistance training, eats very little protein, and wants to lose weight fast so they're not paying for expensive GLP1 drugs for a long period of time. You're asking folks to make three separate changes: start exercising, change their diet to add protein, and use GLP1s to reduce food amount. And reducing food amount already goes…

Increasing exercise also goes against reducing food amount, because it makes you hungrier.

For me my cravings shifted from cookies/candy/ice cream to craving food that actually does something for my training, like a real meal.

Also for me if I go to crossfit after workday ends I don't get cravings the rest of that day. If anything I want to go to sleep instead of eating candy in front of the TV.

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

#435

Post by notesinthefield »

pogue wrote: post #413
notesinthefield wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) -…

Oh Ive done dexa’s before, I mostly dont care about hard body comp numbers anymore. Part of this latest “journey” is separating my identity from the “stats” of my body, because I was defined by them for so long. I want to spend my time feeling and looking good now.

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

#436

Post by cthalupa »

thefz wrote: post #430
cthalupa wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For protein intake helping decrease this: https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fj.13-...

https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1096/fj.13...

https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1096/fj.14...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S216183132...

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/8/2457

For weight lifting helping decrease this: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/11/2824

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-013-1506-0

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.005...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mus.21780

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpregu.004...

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/4/423

These are just a tiny subset of the studies done - google scholar can find you many dozens more, if you desire. And, of course, the fact that these studies exist it all necessarily implies that you lose muscle mass when in energy deficit, as you will see in the control groups for them.

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

#437

Post by cthalupa »

Terr_ wrote: post #433
nkmskdmfodf wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Because the body can only extract so much energy per minute from all of the fat in your body. Was curious about this, went hunting for some rough data, this [0] suggests every kilogram of fat held can be drawn down at ~70 food-calories per day. So someone with 25% body fat weighting 100kg (~220lb) could draw 1750 food calories per day, which strikes me as pretty ample unless they're also adding a bunch of physical…

> which strikes me as pretty ample unless they're also adding a bunch of physical activity.

It seems likely we've evolved to reduce energy expenditure in other ways when we regularly induce physical activity, too. Walk 20,000 steps or spend a couple of hours on the treadmill? Your body finds ways to reduce your energy expenditure elsewhere.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4803033/

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

#438

Post by nightowl_games »

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.

Jeff Nippard is a YouTuber, natural body building pro and record holder, and he takes about his bulk/cut cycle a lot. I don't know how you can so confidently say "No they don't" when it's literally impossible for you to make such a blanket statement.

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

#439

Post by morgengold »

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…

The body breaks down some muscle tissue beacause it can make glucose from by gluconeogenesis. You need about at least 80 g glucose or so per day (brain), even if you do not eat any carbohydrates. The body cannot make glucose from fat.

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

#440

Post by Kirby64 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #425
Kirby64 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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.

I’m sure there’s some people that this might apply to, but I suspect it’s a much (much) smaller subset than people that are actually obese. For the rest, just decrease your intake until you lose weight. Not much else.

> 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.)

Exactly what variables are missing then? We can agree that exercise, although certainly burns some calories, is not really the lever you want to pull if you actually want to lose weight by itself. What other variable besides changing how much food you eat would you suggest?

Post reply on HN