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

591–600 of 868 posts

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#591

Post by physPop »

strken wrote: post #358
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.

"No free lunch" is a reasonable question to ask when evaluating medication, if it would improve the evolutionary fitness of the majority of people. I think this is behind some of the skepticism. If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them? I would guess t…

Because over the course of a billion years of history, evolutionary pressures essentially end after child-rearing ages.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#592

Post by sarchertech »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #327
sarchertech wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors don’t get paid for writing prescriptions. They don’t get kickbacks for writing prescriptions. A small subset of doctors are paid by pharmaceutical companies to run trials or provide expertise, but you can look that up since it’s publicly available information, and it’s not based on them prescribing you anything. At most a drug rep comes by and brings donuts or something to talk about their new drugs. Source w…

They get paid in lower risk deductibles. If a patient demands a drug they saw on commercials, the doctor can reduce liability by prescribing it in many cases.

Doctors don’t have less liability if they give the patient something they ask for.

It’s certainly not enough of an effect that doctors make decisions on what to prescribe based on their malpractice insurance premiums.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#593

Post by Roark66 »

This is all nice and all, but how can they tell these benefits are from ozempic or actual calorie restriction? Were talking about people that suffer from hiv induced bad fat distribution. I assume this means they have conditions such as fatty liver etc. Simple calorie restriction will improve their life.

The study would have to do the exact same calorie restriction for both groups. One on ozempic, one without. Then if one group showed benefits that would he clear.

Even if the mechanism was something like they were stressed less by hunger.

Ozempic/semaglutide is great stuff, but it has same dangers as calorie restriction. If you don't watch carefully what you eat (increase protein, supplement with micronutrients) you can become deffiecient and end up in a very unhealthy place.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#595

Post by radiofreeeuropa »

eru wrote: post #474
radiofreeeuropa wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's anecdotes, and there's science. Individually, there's (previously) been nothing better to suggest than "try harder (and, maybe, smarter)". Statistically it was almost useless, but it's the best we had. It's not bad advice exactly, it's just extremely unlikely to work for long-term, sustained weight loss. It also very much appears to be the case that weight gain and loss are heavily influenced by environmental…

> Skinnier countries aren't skinnier because the people there have more willpower, it seems, but because they live in a skinnier country and are surrounded by the culture, laws, physical layouts of the created world, et c., that come with that. Do we have data on that? I guess you could look at natural experiments, like people who lost and won H1B lotteries, and see if only the ones actually making it to the US get f…

Yes, it’s a google away.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#596

Post by randomNumber7 »

parineum wrote: post #198
throwawaylaptop wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you told millions of people that bread, sugar, pasta and bread are basically killing them, and to flat out stop eating them.. you probably would help people lose weight (and save many lives too). My dad has finally understood that grains are for people that need help maintain weight or gaining weight. No fat person should ever be eating them.

If I told you billions of people eat bread, sugar and pasta and it wasn't "basically killing them" (whatever that means)... It's strange to make the culprit of a modern epidemic foods that have been with us for millenia.

Real bread contains no additional sugar and is not made with 100% white flour.

I know it's hard to believe in the US as today it even gets harder in Germany to find it.

The problem is eating shitty cheap mass produced food.

Same goes for "vegetable oil". Check out how it is made and you will probably respect olive oil more or some good ol butter.

Also it is possible to drink water. You don't need soda from dawn till dusk .

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#597

Post by franktankbank »

b112 wrote: post #543
cyrillite wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that we really are much more similar to chimps than they’re giving us credit for. If we ate a relatively low calorie, high protein diet, and maintained an active lifestyle, we’d all be pretty damn muscular and lean. Not roided out muscular, but far more so than I think the average person expects. Our body composition is significantly determined by relatively near-zero fitness demands in modern life and…

Yes just 150+ years ago most field work was done by hand, including moving rocks from fields, plowing with an animal (and a lot of human strength too). Just clearing new roads was mostly manual work. (Sure, you could blow up things, but then you still had to clear the bits and level the road. Yes horses existed, but mostly it was just people.) Every activity took more physical effort, everything was maintained manual…

Yes indeed. People 100 years ago were more or less jacked on average from necessity alone. Better or worse I don't know but I do like me some menial labor on the reg.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#598

Post by DontchaKnowit »

zosima wrote: post #425
aianus wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a drug I can take to gain weight?

You have so much choice: For the pure fat experience I suggest corticosteroids, lithium or a random antipsychotic. Insulin is also very useful here, but a tad dangerous. If it has to be muscle mass, then anabolic steroids of course are preferable. But beta adrenergic agonists like clenbuterol also seem to have some effect. And there are many more.

Corticosteroids are also pretty damn dangerous

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#599

Post by throwaway6041 »

aerhardt wrote: post #517
Llamamoe wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this is essentially BS. I'd say that 95% of healthy weight people stay that weight because their metabolism and appetite works properly. People who stay in shape by paying careful attention to their diet are a tiny minority.

Where I live (Spain) there’s a massive intergenerational gap between how our parents ate and how we eat and exercise. A huge number of people around me go to great lengths to control what they eat and make an effort to move. I see it at the beach, at the restaurant or at the gym. You can ask anyone in the older generations if younger people are physically healthier and you’d find an almost unanimous yes. Coincidental…

> Coincidentally we have one of the highest life expectancies in the world

Those numbers are relying on how long the older generation lives. If the younger people are physically more active, how do you know that they will also live as long? It could be that modern expectations of what a "healthy" body should look like takes it too far, and that you will end up with a shorter life.

I see a lot of former athletes dying in their 60s/70s from heart failures and other conditions. Perhaps the body has limits to how much abuse it can take.

Post reply on HN