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

771–780 of 868 posts

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#771

Post by fc417fc802 »

strken wrote: post #565
benchly wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Ozempic is so great, how come our bodies don't just... While I agree with your sentiment, your argument here assumes the human body always makes intelligent decisions for itself. My obstructive sleep apnea would like a word. After it's done choking me awake, of course. The body is a marvelous machine, but it is far from a perfect or intelligent design. We are lucky to have what we have, but expect operating mist…

I agree with this criticism in the case of sleep apnoea, since the respiratory system is complicated. By intuition, it seems like the evolution of a complicated trait should require significant genetic changes, and thus be more likely to get stuck in a local maximum. I'd expect the respiratory system to be quite resistant to change: what if you've got an SNP that reduces sleep aponea but also prevents peristalsis, sp…

> it was evolutionary advantageous for most people to put on weight until very recently

And it will perpetually remain possible for it to very abruptly and unexpectedly prove advantageous once again.

Primates in the wild really hit the nail on the head here. We clearly lost the equivalent at some point and haven't rapidly regained it. There has to be a reason for that (though it might well prove to be entirely incidental).

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#772

Post by fc417fc802 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #622
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…

> If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? Idk, why can’t we synthesise vitamin C? Why do we have a bent oesophagus prone to choking and heads bigger than womena’ hips? We weren’t intelligently designed. To the degree we were optimised for anything it isn’t the modern environment. A lot of pushback against medicine in general seems to derive from an underlying belief in an innate…

Both of your examples have no straightforward solution. Whereas we already have the mechanism in question so the question "why doesn't it just ramp up" is quite reasonable. Biology is a highly tuned system.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#773

Post by const_cast »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #770
const_cast wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're dismissing a claimed observation without evidence. I have no horse in this race but I'll comment that you appear to be attempting to claim that there's no difference between "skinny" and "crypt keeper". That's a preposterous position to take. The various terminology exists because people use it to describe real world differences. For example skinny, gangly, and gaunt aren't the same thing (although there is of…

I'm explaining why your claimed observation is bullshit.

And, for the record, you haven't provided any evidence either. You're just "saying your observations".

And, let's all be real here, skinny person to skinny person. Most skinny people are extraordinarily biased against ozempic because they lose moral high ground to people they dislike.

I think a lot of skinny people want to desperately believe they are special or better in some ways than ozempic users. For a lot of them, being skinny is all they have: (

But that's not the case. That's something I'm fine with, I suggest you get there too.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#774

Post by fc417fc802 »

FeloniousHam wrote: post #733
tomrod wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Expensive food is expensive, but I would bet quality food is cheaper here than anywhere else. Having lived in a few other countries with less industrialized distribution networks, no, this claim is dramatically incorrect. Fruits, vegetables, staples like rice, and basic forms of protein (fish, insects and sea critters, some chicken) are much, much cheaper relative to processed foods. Larger protein sources like bee…

I'm not arguing whether fresh food tastes better or is healthier. What I want to see is evidence that "quality" food is (relatively) more expensive in the United States than it is anywhere else in the world. And then maybe some evidence that people buy junk food because "healthy food" is too expensive (my hungry teenager looks in the pantry and the refrigerator and says, "all we have is ingredients").

> my hungry teenager looks in the pantry and the refrigerator and says, "all we have is ingredients"

Matches my experience. I too would contest that reasonable quality food is more expensive. In my experience it's actually somewhat cheaper by any metric except $/calorie and even then you could just add butter or oil to the "healthy" alternative to juice the numbers.

I think the primary differentiator is convenience. Grabbing an actually rather expensive box from the cupboard beats out spending 30 minutes cooking and another 10 cleaning.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#775

Post by tracker1 »

In my experience it also showed gastroparesis and fecal vomiting over the course of a couple years. Coming off meant the feeling of starvation 24/7 for about 11 months before starting to get better, and 1.5 years off the medication now, I'm still having digestive issues.

Went back to keto (mostly carnivore) in May and a few pounds away from 50# down from my max weight, managed to cut way back on insulin (some days not needing any).

Overall, I wish I'd never heard of Trulicity or Ozempic. I didn't lose weight on them, and the seriously messed me up. The negative effects of coming off are pretty bad on their own on top.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#776

Post by nomel »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #426
throwup238 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took us 10-20 years to find out about tardive dyskinesia due to antipsychotic medications and the long term dependency and withdrawal effects of benzodiazepines. Two entire classes of drugs that are now in common use, so it’s not unheard of. I’m not saying we should take Ozempic off the market but don’t be fooled into thinking that we’re immune to unintended consequences just because we did a few studies (almost a…

At no point did I say we were immune to unintended consequences. Just that demanding every drug be used for 30+ years before you’ll touch it is not actually making an analysis of the tradeoffs involved. Also, the drug classes you listed are not great examples. Benzodiazepines don’t fit what we’re talking about at all: it’s common to develop tolerance and get serious withdrawal symptoms from a few months of heavy use.…

> Just that demanding every drug be used for 30+ years before you’ll touch it is not actually making an analysis of the tradeoffs involved.

Your replies are unnecessarily aggressive, and you’re not reading comments in a charitable way, or keeping track of the usernames writing them. Nobody is saying this.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#777

Post by fc417fc802 »

const_cast wrote: post #773
fc417fc802 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're dismissing a claimed observation without evidence. I have no horse in this race but I'll comment that you appear to be attempting to claim that there's no difference between "skinny" and "crypt keeper". That's a preposterous position to take. The various terminology exists because people use it to describe real world differences. For example skinny, gangly, and gaunt aren't the same thing (although there is of…

I'm explaining why your claimed observation is bullshit. And, for the record, you haven't provided any evidence either. You're just "saying your observations". And, let's all be real here, skinny person to skinny person. Most skinny people are extraordinarily biased against ozempic because they lose moral high ground to people they dislike. I think a lot of skinny people want to desperately believe they are special o…

I'm not the same person you were responding to earlier? You seem rather emotionally wound up in all of this. Someone doesn't need "evidence" to say "I noticed A". The evidence is right there - they're claiming to have seen it.

Among other things, you've put yourself in the position of claiming - but not arguing, because you provide no reasoning to engage with - that there are no black swans in the world. It's entirely untenable.

What they saw might have been an outlier. Perhaps they misunderstood. They might be confused or uniformed or any number of things. They could even be lying outright! But to respond by dismissing a claimed observation without evidence or reason is not a constructive attitude and I would even argue anti-intellectual.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#778

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #772
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? Idk, why can’t we synthesise vitamin C? Why do we have a bent oesophagus prone to choking and heads bigger than womena’ hips? We weren’t intelligently designed. To the degree we were optimised for anything it isn’t the modern environment. A lot of pushback against medicine in general seems to derive from an underlying belief in an innate…

Both of your examples have no straightforward solution. Whereas we already have the mechanism in question so the question "why doesn't it just ramp up" is quite reasonable. Biology is a highly tuned system.

> your examples have no straightforward solution

In humans? No. In our ancestors and every other animal around us? Yes.

> we already have the mechanism in question so the question "why doesn't it just ramp up" is quite reasonable

Our species almost got wiped out in an ice age less than a hundred thousand years ago [1]. It's possible we had the ability to ramp up GLP-1, but that it got eliminated in a famine.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#779

Post by lurking_swe »

ehnto wrote: post #421
ifwinterco wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it looks like it's basically just saying: 1) Being fat is really bad for you 2) Moderate calorie restriction may have some health benefits Both of which we already knew, the second one being a bit more controversial but a hypothesis that has been around for decades

I think it's controversial mostly because it is mixed in with morality, self-image, personal freedom etc. I think everyone has the right to be fat, if they have chosen to prioritise other aspects of life, but I think people should be informed and consider the "being fat can be healthy" movement to be quite disingenuous. Do what you want, but be realistic about it, and tricking people into ignoring the negative effect…

is there a “being fat can be healthy” movement? I must be unaware. I am aware of the “fat people deserve respect, dignity, and can be beautiful too” movement…which i agree with.

But if anyone is saying being fat is healthy, they’re pretending.

Re: Ozempic shows anti-aging effects in trial

#780

Post by y-curious »

ACCount36 wrote: post #707
y-curious wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN