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

441–450 of 461 posts

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

#441

Post by unshavedyak »

Kirby64 wrote: post #440
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That's the point of the discussion, imo. It seems to be an area of research. There's a lot of questions in my view. Why are people so addicted to food? Why do some models of caloric restriction not work as well as they should? How do we embed behavioral change, or do some of these people just have to be in misery for the rest of their lives?

It's not a profound statement to say if you starve in a desert you'll lose weight. The question is how we can apply this to real, normal people. Or if it's even possible in a food-weaponized world.

My view is that we're in the realm of addiction more so than simply answering "how" they mechanically lose weight. This is a public health crisis, one we need to be open to exploring.

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

#442

Post by nkmskdmfodf »

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…

It's not going to be linear though. 1750 cal per day ~= 73 cal per hour. If, for example, you're already in a calorie deficit for the day, and then do a nice hour long workout (or demanding mental work), you're going to burn some muscle.

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

#443

Post by hollerith »

cthalupa wrote: post #428
hollerith wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand now. Sorry for being slow to get it.

>Fat-free Mass (FFM) Encompasses all of the body's non-fat tissues, including the skeleton, water, muscle, connective tissue, and organ tissues.

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

#444

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

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).

> They are 75% carbs.

75% of the calories in broccoli is from carbs, sure, but because the overall calorie content of broccoli is so low, it's still considered low carb.

https://www.nutritionix.com/food/broccoli/1-cup

A 1-cup, 156-gram serving is 55 calories, 11g carbs, and 5g fiber, so is only 6g of net carbs for keto purposes.

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

#445

Post by thefz »

cthalupa wrote: post #426
thefz wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am not 20 nor on any drug.

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

#446

Post by Kirby64 »

unshavedyak wrote: post #441
Kirby64 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That's the point of the discussion, imo. It seems to be an area of research. There's a lot of questions in my view. Why are people so addicted to food? Why do some models of caloric restriction not work as well as they should? How do we embed behavioral change, or do some of these people just have to be in misery for the rest of their lives? It's not a profound statement to say if you starve in a desert you'll lose w…

Again, food addiction and satiety is a different question than if CICO works. If you can't stop eating and cram too many calories because you eat too many... burgers and potato chips or whatever, that has nothing to do with if CICO works. I have yet to see evidence that shows that caloric restriction if properly, truly controlled, does not result in weight loss for the vast, vast majority of obese individuals. People are notoriously bad at estimating calories and knowing how much they eat, so any study that is self-reported is inherently going to be problematic.

Should we do more research to find if anything anything specific that may be causing overeating or food non-satiety? Sure. Is the answer likely to be something that is essentially 'tastier food is easier to overeat, and tastier food is much more available than it used to be'? I suspect that is the likely conclusion.

I think GLP1 agonists are a great tool to be used to create that so-called 'willpower' to stop overeating (or, an easy way to reduce food noise, whatever you want to call it). The next step is figuring out how, as a society, we make it easier for folks to make that lifestyle change without a constant stream of 'willpower drugs' for the rest of their life.

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

#447

Post by cthalupa »

thefz wrote: post #445
cthalupa wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am not 20 nor on any drug.

I was referring to the portion around thinking people should just eat healthier and giving context, as well as explaining why that thinking is flawed for many people.

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

#448

Post by brailsafe »

nightowl_games wrote: post #438
snozolli wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't even have a dog in this fight, but if someone cited a YouTuber—particularly as their first qualifying attribute—as an authoritative source, I'd just laugh.

While some YouTubers may be correct about the things they talk about, or may even be doctors or researchers, I think we're in a pretty sus world if disputes about factual or even anecdotal information can come down to whether someone's watching and getting recommended the same content on a video site designed to exploit chronic viewing habits.

If your crowd does differently, just cite that, if they don't, speak from a place of speculation if that's what you'd like like them to do, because that's basically what watching YouTube does for a person.

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

#449

Post by explodingman »

Auracle wrote: post #327
crazygringo wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading the study [1] correctly, that conclusion is not warranted. It appears that they fed the control group and treatment group of mice lots of food to get them fat, then gave them identical normal diets, and gave the treatment group semaglutide. The semaglutide group lost significantly more weight (fig A.ii) than the control group, and also lost heart muscle. So it does not seem that they compared to an equ…

I guess perhaps the better conclusion would be that maybe dosages should be adjusted so that people don’t lose weight too quickly?

In its trials, Ozempic was combined with intervention/guidance from nutritionists and fitness advisors, and doctors are supposed to reproduce this by referring patients. You can't do that with mice.

I think if I were taking Ozempic I would ask my doctor to halve the rate of progression to higher doses to make the whole process easier to manage, not just managing muscle loss but also the whole of life impact. The official protocol is very "crash diet" in style.

Anyone thinking of taking Ozempic should be aware that many people abandon the drug within the first two years, due to too much nausea, diarrhoea and cost.

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

#450

Post by lenerdenator »

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…

"addictive" is an active word in the sentence you quoted.
Post reply on HN