681–690 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I meant it cancels out the effect of THC. Which is handy if you've taken an edible and are getting tired of it. But yes, that too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice is no longer between "cutting out bread and sugar completely" and "some kind of lifelong moderation for a person that has struggled." The choice is now between "cutting out bread and sugar completely" and "removing the struggle to moderate bread and sugar." You're clearly an advocate for your father making healthy choices. So why would you advocate against the use of a drug that makes that easier?
Why waste money and risk side effects for a drug that's not actually needed? Changing your habits is much easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
If not having cancer is so great why don't our bodies just not make cancer cells? Weight loss aids are given far more scrutiny because people wrongly view it as a moral failing
Some people probably do come at it from the moral angle. But there are good reasons to assume that this time isn't different, that there is indeed no free lunch. Thankfully, everyone is free to make that risk assessment themselves. Just don't start trying to force it on anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Run a study of your approach and show good results over a cohort for 2+ years and you'll make an entire sub-field of medical scientists very happy. [EDIT] It's not that your approach can't work, it's that if (for example) people had as hard a time following the directions for condoms as they do following diet & workout plans, we'd never allow condoms to be sold as contraceptives, they'd not even be close to being OK…
87% of people in this study reversed t2d or prediabetes with diet and exercise: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
And they had 86% adherence for a year. If they'd studied this farther out and it went the same way as basically any study that's done that, adherence would be a lot worse in another couple years. And that's in a group that's exceptionally motivated vs. the general population—has an actual illness they're trying to treat, and has opted in to the study knowing what it's asking of them and for how long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd trust for-profit pharmaceutical companies before I would trust "all chemicals are evil and bad" Facebook moms.
Clearly you missed the part about name-calling. Anyways, that's a false dichotomy since you can be a third option: someone that's skeptical of messing with an important energy consumption pathway in the human body.
Humans did not evolve for an environment where food is overly abundant and physical activity is optional. For almost the entire evolutionary history of humans, this just wasn't the case. But it is what humans are having to deal with today.
Now, take a look at the "metabolic syndrome" and its prevalence. Clearly, there's a lot of room for improvement.
By all accounts, this generation of GLP-1 agonists has found a meaningful way to improve on that baseline. The benefits are broad and the side effects are manageable. This isn't "surprising" as much as it is "long overdue".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ibuprofen ? That's really not something I'd have expected to end up in someone's 'healthy stuff' list. Ibuprofen increases the risk of cardiac event and is a common precipiting factor in renal failure. Most antibiotics also do not do only good things. The list is too long to write here. Side effects profiles change with research and marketing developments, but thinking these drugs are only beneficial is a bit over th…
> Ibuprofen ? That's really not something I'd have expected to end up in someone's 'healthy stuff' list. Never knew about the potential stomach bleeds until I took my mother to the hospital earlier this year. Ironically, she was taking Motrin given to her in the same hospital a week earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My opinion is to wait long enough to validate there are no long term harms, What's your threshold on that? How many years is "long enough"? Trying to calibrate my own sense of risk.
I'm a late adopter to most things. my estimate would bigger than others and I would put it at 30-50years. I take smoking as a cautionary tale, in the beginning it was pushed as not just a recreational thing but a healthy activity that bring benefits with papers published to sing praises about it. my parents were even nudged by their teachers/doctors/etc when they were young to try smoking. now we all know that smokin…
There is no modern-style research touting the benefits of smoking qua smoking. I will grant you there might've been some crank self-publishing something, like some of Aristotle's writings.
But you won't find what we'd consider today an acceptable, reputable form of research saying this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard this as well, but (anecdotally) they haven't reduced my interest in alcohol at all.
Would you consider yourself addicted? Perhaps it stops the addiction without stopping the general desire to drink with friends.
No.
> Perhaps it stops the addiction without stopping the general desire to drink with friends.
The anecdotes I've heard come from people who aren't addicted, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ibuprofen ? That's really not something I'd have expected to end up in someone's 'healthy stuff' list. Never knew about the potential stomach bleeds until I took my mother to the hospital earlier this year. Ironically, she was taking Motrin given to her in the same hospital a week earlier.
Sorry to hear. My doc says to always eat something when taking ibuprofen to protect your stomach.