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

701–710 of 868 posts

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#701

Post by JumpCrisscross »

DharmaPolice wrote: post #170
jjice wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard similar for gambling, and as one of the sister comments said, things like video games. I'm so curious to understand _why_ that effect is there, but I've heard this so many times now that I do believe that it exists in some capacity. Such an interesting world we're opening up here.

Every person I know who tried to give up smoking has the same story - they were successful for a while and then they encountered some stressful moment (exam, work deadline, etc) and they fell off the wagon. One explanation could simply be that normally we have food stresses which manifests in general stress which we relieve via video games or whatever else. If these drugs turn down the volume of hunger then maybe thi…

> One explanation could simply be that normally we have food stresses which manifests in general stress

Our biology is parsimonious. I'd bet that when our brains first started processing higher-level stresses, it salvaged the hunger pathway instead of engineering something biochemically new.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#702

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sjw987 wrote: post #540
lysecret wrote: post #23

It’s so fascinating that we just keep on finding more positive effects.

It's fascinating that many of the benefits are the same benefits as just losing weight in general.

> many of the benefits are the same benefits as just losing weight in general

Many, but not all. Losing weight through diet and exercise has no effect on alcoholism, for example.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#703

Post by loeg »

eru wrote: post #456
strken wrote: post #358

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…

> The second point I haven't seen discussed is that weight loss drugs prior to GLP-1 agonists include cigarettes, which (worst case) give you cancer; [...] Nicotine works just fine as an appetite suppressant without the carcinogenic tar you get from burning tobacco leaves. Similar for other stimulants or stimulant-like substances. But I agree that they get a bad reputation, despite actually working pretty well, and w…

YMMV but personally I did not find nicotine an effective appetite suppressant.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#704

Post by JumpCrisscross »

a5c11 wrote: post #566
soulofmischief wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I didn't realize the solution to all my problems is just to fix them. The answer was staring me right in the face the entire time. While I'm at it, I should also not take ADHD medication and instead just fix my mutated dopamine circuitry.

You don't quite understand the meaning of "symptom" and "illness", do you? Obesity - symptom. Usually the illness is a bad diet, lack of movement, or very rarely some serious health condition. Instead of targeting obesity, fix your habits or see a doctor to see why your body accumulates excessive amounts of fat. Dopamine issues, lack of concentration, etc. - symptoms. The illness is ADHD. By taking medicines you are…

> Obesity - symptom. Usually the illness is a bad diet, lack of movement, or very rarely some serious health condition

The fact that it's treatable with a drug should have put this nonsense to bed.

I don't gain weight when I eat more food. That occurs regardless of whether I'm exercising heavily or literally not leaving bed and ordering food via delivery. My basal metabolism takes care of my weight management. The flux is mostly in muscle mass.

Similarly, I have friends who will precisely measure their diet and exercise, gain a pound or two, and then have to work for weeks to burn that off. If I had that metabolism, I'd be obese. I don't, so I'm not. They took Ozempic, reduced their weight, reduced their inflammation, and then stopped taking it. They rebounded a bit, but nowhere close to where they were originally, and are now reset to a healthy weight. (More significantly, their diet changed because of the obesity going away. They crave fruits and vegetables more than processed carbs.) The effect is similar in type to what I experienced when I got a shot of penicillin for strep.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#705

Post by const_cast »

saberience wrote: post #464
const_cast wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just what happens when you get skinny. People who have always been skinny just look sickly always so we don't notice.

I've always been naturally slim and people my whole life have been telling me I look 10-15 years younger than my actual age... the "Ozempic face" is a totally different look, it makes you look gaunt and dying.

This is just not true, and as I've stated, it's because you've always been skinny.

There's no magic sauce in ozempic that makes you lose more buccal fat than other weight loss methods. That's just not real, it doesn't exist.

When you go from lots of buccal fat to no buccal fat, you will look gaunt in comparison. You've always had low fat so there's no frame of reference, so nobody calls you gaunt.

But, if you gained say 30 pounds, you would look much less gaunt than you currently do.

Either that or you're not as slim as you think you are. At 5'9 a normal BMI sits at 135 pounds for a man - you need to get very thin to have thin cheeks. Its possible you're slim, but not slim enough to have slim cheeks.

Also you lose buccal fat as you age. But ozempic does not age you.

And then of course fat distribution varies person to person. You might be slim but have abnormally large amounts of buccal fat. That can happen, but it doesn't mean that if you got thin via ozempic you'd lose the buccal fat. Again, there's no mechanism for that.

If you still don't believe me, just compare someone thin via ozempic versus someone naturally thin at the exact same weight and height and gender. Notice the buccal fat - the naturally thin person doesn't have more. It just feels that way, because you've never seen them with more buccal fat so the amount they have seems "right". Whereas, for the ozempic person, it seems less.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#706

Post by guerrilla »

xienze wrote: post #642
guerrilla wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I count my calories accurately. The problem is keeping consumption that low in the long term. It's not sustainable. Your body does everything to fight you and it only gets harder the further you go.

Well that's where the "discipline" part comes in.

Only if you misunderstood what I said. Your body will determine how much "discipline" you have. Will power doesn't come from some external magical place. It'll be adjusted by your body as necessary to make sure losing weight is hard as possible for you.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#707

Post by ACCount36 »

y-curious wrote: post #625
bobsmooth wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is/was made of a poison from an animal. Caffeine is an insecticide.

Right, and it's also not something naturally in the human body. But sugar is also an insecticide when you cook it into a jam. It doesn't really make me comfortable with giant lizard poison

[flagged]

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#708

Post by mensetmanusman »

sarchertech wrote: post #592
mensetmanusman wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure they do, it’s why doctors these days prescribe pills versus recommending healthy habits.

There are no healthy habit recommendations anymore in many practices due to anti shame culture etc.

This is different to other parts of the world with healthier citizens.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#709

Post by radiofreeeuropa »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #615
jart wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's thanks to that kind of dishonorable practice that $NVO has lost 64% of its value over the last year. This is how the world rewards the makers of the most successful and helpful drug in history.

They’ve been rewarded enough (~$14.65B USD net profit 2024), and are lucky they’re allowed to capture any further economic benefit from the sale of a simple compound (imho).

... a simple compound that was already developed and in-use, so the current patent (the one that's made it a big, ongoing news story and a kind of social phenomenon) is rewarding only going through the approval process for using it for weight loss, specifically, not development of a new drug.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#710

Post by lazide »

throwup238 wrote: post #364
strken wrote: post #358

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…

> How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them? There are several reasons: Chimps have a higher density of testosterone receptors with a higher sensitivity than humans. Compared to humans, they are essentially roided out all the time. Humans are also hairless endurance hunters so we naturally have much larger fat reserves (15-25% of…

I think the point the poster was making was more along the lines of a Chesterton’s fence.
Post reply on HN