Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

globalnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#81

Post by CapstanRoller »

ndriscoll wrote: post #65
nikole9696 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this sentiment. It can be used about, well, anything at all that might cause your risk of anything to go up as far as science understands it today (which might be different tomorrow, they're always learning). Accident while biking? Nope - too risky, no care for you. Eat red meat and get cancer? Too bad, no treatment for you. Same for drinking wine, or doing any of the thousands of things "they" say MAY raise y…

That mostly seems reasonable. Get in a car crash? Your car premiums go up. Get in a bike accident and need medical care? Your medical premiums go up. Have too high a body fat? Higher premiums. Smoke? Higher premiums. With a single payer system you could also price it into things like red meat and alcohol through a sales tax that goes to insurance.

To extend your examples: why aren't we coupling this to incentives? Car crashes are much more debilitating than bicycle crashes, and most bicycling in the world is done for transport, yet we heavily incentivize car culture.

As a casual bicycle user, you're far more likely to have a serious bicycle collision from being hit by a car driver.

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#82

Post by dmix »

jprete wrote: post #55
dmix wrote: post #54

Is this sort of thing higher the longer you use it? If it’s only for 3-6 months to get the ball rolling and getting you walking and eventually into a gym it’s probably worth the risk. It really shouldn’t be a long term thing should it? I was gaining a lot of weight and simply walking for 30min was exercise (which sounds embarrassing in retrospect as I type it). So I did that daily around the neighborhood. That got ea…

I think people vary greatly in how much they enjoy exercise. I don’t, unfortunately, so it’s very hard for me to keep up any aerobic exercise program. I simply don’t form a habit, I have to push myself every time. I don’t think it has anything to do with whether people do a massive change or not. I think the people that enjoy exercise usually never have to do a massive change because they are already doing it from na…

You’ve never felt a good after a short bit of cardio or lifting heavy weights?

Besides my point was that most overweight people would lose weight simply walking around the block every day. That’s not asking people to go for a run when they weigh 250lbs+ which will always suck unless you very slowly work up to being able to run more than a half a block and wear knee supports.

The thing about working out daily is that the first 10min always sucks bad after but after you’re done it feels great - for the rest of the morning. Being depressed is harder in that mind state which feeds into more physical activity.

Like I said though you have to start small.

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#83

Post by SoftTalker »

CapstanRoller wrote: post #81
ndriscoll wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That mostly seems reasonable. Get in a car crash? Your car premiums go up. Get in a bike accident and need medical care? Your medical premiums go up. Have too high a body fat? Higher premiums. Smoke? Higher premiums. With a single payer system you could also price it into things like red meat and alcohol through a sales tax that goes to insurance.

To extend your examples: why aren't we coupling this to incentives? Car crashes are much more debilitating than bicycle crashes, and most bicycling in the world is done for transport, yet we heavily incentivize car culture. As a casual bicycle user, you're far more likely to have a serious bicycle collision from being hit by a car driver .

Not sure what you mean by "Car crashes are much more debilitating than bicycle crashes."

If a cyclist gets hit by a car at any significant speed, he's likely seriously injured or dead, while the car driver is likely unscathed, at least physically.

If two cars collide, unless they are traveling at quite high speeds or are particularly unlucky, everyone will probably walk away, as they are surrounded by a steel structure that has been specifically engineered to protect vehicle occupants in the most common crash scenarios, in addition to the protection provided by safety belts and airbags. The cyclist has none of this.

If two bicycles collide, well it depends but scrapes and possibly broken bones are likely, along with possible concussion or worse head injury.

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#84

Post by 876978095789789 »

nonameiguess wrote: post #50

I don't know to what extent this kind of perspective matters compared to the obviously more common usage of obese people with serious diet control problems, but I come at this more from a physique sport angle. I have no real interest in getting big and don't want to use steroids, so I don't actually compete, but I do lift nearly every day, run nearly every day, and have become extremely lean, probably currently somew…

First, you're not "probably currently somewhere in the area of 6-7%" bodyfat--6-7% is a minicut away from 5-6%, which is stage-ready levels of bodyfat for natural bodybuilders, and they only drop to that a few times a year (because of muscle loss and the inability to build muscle). But the rest of your comment is worth taking in for those who are overweight or obese and still have reservations about these drugs, or about using drugs at all for weight management. The influencers selling you discipline, diet, exercise, and the rest as the ticket to achieve lasting weight loss are already on these drugs. If you have serious weight issues (which these people don't), why aren't you? (I say this as someone who has never used any drug for weight loss, except being a bit of a caffeine junkie.)

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#85

Post by THENATHE »

sschueller wrote: post #80

From my understanding all that Ozempic does it kill your appetite. It doesn't burn fat or anthing else (except the side effects of course) or does it? Seems to me that there must be a safer way to reduce someones appetite.

It can help you process glucose better. Semagultide can help lower A1C in multiple ways, mainly by regulating appetite but also by stimulating the receptors that cause insulin to be produced. By producing more insulin, you feel more satiated and also reap the benefits of moving farther away from prediabetes/diabetes

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#86

Post by CapstanRoller »

SoftTalker wrote: post #83
CapstanRoller wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To extend your examples: why aren't we coupling this to incentives? Car crashes are much more debilitating than bicycle crashes, and most bicycling in the world is done for transport, yet we heavily incentivize car culture. As a casual bicycle user, you're far more likely to have a serious bicycle collision from being hit by a car driver .

Not sure what you mean by "Car crashes are much more debilitating than bicycle crashes." If a cyclist gets hit by a car at any significant speed, he's likely seriously injured or dead, while the car driver is likely unscathed, at least physically. If two cars collide, unless they are traveling at quite high speeds or are particularly unlucky, everyone will probably walk away, as they are surrounded by a steel structu…

We know that bicycle usage in places like the Netherlands doesn't result in frequent serious accidents like you describe. The safety culture is totally different, and injuries like that are low despite a much more casual approach to helmets. There are people on cargo bikes transporting goods and going shopping with their children.

This is an infrastructure problem, not a bicycle problem. The infrastructure problem exists because places like the USA prioritize cars.

Even the two bicycle collision you describe is quite rare outside of competitive sports. People casually bicycling to work aren't going at such speeds, don't go closely in opposite directions, and really have no reason to do so.

Bicycling is very safe when you remove car interaction from the equation.

Check out this YT channel for more info backed by data: https://youtube.com/c/notjustbikes

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#87

Post by tonyedgecombe »

seydor wrote: post #23
hooverd wrote: post #18

I've also heard that Ozempic was good for the GDP, so mixed bag.

Denmark gets rich, everyone else gets poor because they don't consume. Well played

If we ever found out that it cures peoples appetite for spending then it would be banned immediately.

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#88

Post by s1artibartfast »

anigbrowl wrote: post #79
s1artibartfast wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than being stripped of their human agency and choice. Better to be fat and happy than skinny with someone controlling your life

Being controlled by the corn/sugar industry doesn't sound great to me but you do you.

I can say no to the corn industry. I can't say no to the government.

Re: Ozempic linked to stomach paralysis, other gastrointestinal issues: UBC study

#89

Post by Reki »

huytersd wrote: post #70
mrguyorama wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame is a terrible motivator for weight loss. It just doesn't really work. Nobody gets fat because they think being fat is okay. Fat people tend to be struggling with other things that they largely need to tackle before they have the emotional bandwidth to do the un-fat thing. Fat shaming doesn't help anyone lose weight, it just makes you feel superior.

It works very well. If they’re struggling with other things societal shame will make sure losing weight becomes their major struggle.

The thing about claiming things like this is they require a strong scientific consensus. Otherwise, if they're wrong, its just hurting people, sometimes even killing them. Many girls die every year from EDs, and societal shame is a strong candidate for their cause.
Post reply on HN