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

71–80 of 868 posts

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#71

Post by pitpatagain »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #26
pitpatagain wrote: post #11

This is specifically a study on people with HIV-associated lipohypertrophy, which is associated with accelerated aging. Not clear what this would mean for people generally.

People on ozempic certainly look more like the crypt keeper than a younger version of themselves. You lose all that buccal fat that defines your young adult face.

Or that's who you notice. My husband takes ozempic for type 2 diabetes and it completely fixed his blood sugar while causing very moderate weight loss.

What the people in this study have causes abnormal visceral fat accumulation in the belly and back and itself causes disturbing changes in body shape and appearance, does not respond or normal weight loss, and hasn't had real treatment options. That ozempic has beneficial effects for it in an RCT is actually awesome, it's the framing given by the headline that is bad.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#72

Post by bradleyjg »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #27
noah_buddy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people (will only speak to America), view being fat as a literal moral failing. Gluttony or overeating are not the sin, but being fat. (From that perspective:)a miracle cure that allows someone to stop being fat is like an indulgence (in the Roman Catholic sense). It’s a cheat, a shortcut that allows the unworthy to reach a state they do not deserve. My opinion is to wait long enough to validate there are no lon…

>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.

There’s two sides to that coin. Obesity has known long term harms. So what we are looking for in a deal breaker can’t be a small but statistically significant increase in some cancer or other. We’d need something as bad as smoking to outweigh the benefits.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#73

Post by genewitch »

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.

every time in recorded human history when there's be a panacea or cure-all it's generally been snake-oil.

There are a lot of side effects, of this type of medicine - many which were not really prevalent when it was prescribed on-label.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#74

Post by morkalork »

kulahan wrote: post #67
cm2187 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also the idea that it is "easy" to lose weight is completely out of touch. If it was there wouldn't be millions of people trying hard, spending money on trying and failing for decades, and entire businesses addressing that. RFK Jr's "let them eat less" is paradoxically the modern version of "let them eat cake"!

I think many people confuse simple with easy. It IS simple to reduce your weight. There are like, two things you need to do. It is, however, VERY hard to actually do those things.

Even then, limiting calorie intake isn't all that difficult; there's a reason why intermittent fasting took off and so many people were getting results from it.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#75

Post by jfim »

drowsspa wrote: post #59
stronglikedan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people (will only speak to America), view being fat as a literal moral failing. Gluttony or overeating are not the sin, but being fat. As an American with a sister with thyroid issues, I can say that is absolutely not true for the majority of Americans. People are mostly sympathetic to those who are not obvious slobs.

People are mostly sympathetic when it's physical issues. Psychological issues are treated as diseases of the soul that you only need God or willpower or whatever to fix. And most fat people are fat because of the incentives in our society, but admitting that also goes against certain political ideologies...

What are the incentives for people to be fat, out of curiosity? Do you mean farm subsidies for corn, for example?

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#76

Post by tzs »

HocusLocus wrote: post #55

I guess maybe I'm one of the few who consider "reversing 3.1 biological years" to be a personal insult. Something that polled well in a group of pre-kindergarteners. What happened, some statistical bloodwork metric was tortured to produce such a claim? A mouse population survived the lab a little longer?

Here's an article that answers your question [1]. It in the second bullet point near the top.

[1] https://trial.medpath.com/news/5c43f09ebb6d0f8e/ozempic-show...

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#77

Post by daedrdev »

gryn wrote: post #37
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #27

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…

I think a lot of people share similar concerns, but the benefits of a successfully therapy are so extreme it would take quite a lot to derail ozempic. People easily gain 5 or more years of lifespan by not being obese, avoid myriad related health conditions, and are truly much better off. It would take a lot to reduce someone's life expectancy by a comparable amount and we haven't seen that much besides gastrointestinal issues.

We performed the surgical options like stomach reduction before this which come with serious danger for comparison

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#79

Post by smt88 »

genewitch wrote: post #73
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.

every time in recorded human history when there's be a panacea or cure-all it's generally been snake-oil. There are a lot of side effects, of this type of medicine - many which were not really prevalent when it was prescribed on-label.

There are lots of miraculous, life-saving drugs that have minimal side effects and aren't snake oil.

Metformin, insulin, many vaccines, some statins, and some antibiotics are clearly on that list.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#80

Post by sharkjacobs »

wolfi1 wrote: post #22

Is the term "biological age" even well defined?

I think you're very correct to identify the gulf between what the average MedPath headline reader understands "biological age" to mean, and the very specific chemical tags being measured and reported
Post reply on HN