Remix.run Logo
throwup238 5 days ago

The next line of the article after that 40% quote:

> Carla Prado, a nutrition researcher in the Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences and lead author on the commentary, explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues — including decreased immunity, increased risk of infections and poor wound healing.

The rather obvious problem is that these GLP1 agonists don't improve your diet. If you continue to eat a protein and nutrient deficient diet (which is probably a majority of Americans) with caloric restriction on top of that, that leads to excessive muscle loss that you wouldn't see in a weight loss diet. This normally doesn't happen without GLP1 agonists, because these diets are too difficult to stick to for most people. Those who stick to them usually turn to nutritious high satiety whole foods that help combat the negative effects of caloric restriction.

Losing weight without losing muscle mass is very hard. It requires extreme diets like a protein sparring modified fast where 80%+ of your calories are from lean protein while running a 50% caloric deficit. If this research is correct, then using GLP1 agonists shortcuts the feedback loops that make the diets hard to stick to, but they shift the tradeoffs from weight to overall nutrition.

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" and all that.

llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The rather obvious problem is that these GLP1 agonists don't improve your diet

My understanding from initial anecdotes is this is actually literally wrong. Which was surprising to me, too. But people on GLPs tend to prefer more nutritious food (high protein and high fiber). I'm not sure if this has been studied directly in clinical trials yet but I know that food manufacturers have been reorienting their products toward healthier meal configurations in response to the GLPs.

I predicted the exact opposite of this, but so far I appear to have been wrong.

throwup238 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’ve heard that anecdote from HN users many times but based on my meatspace social group of (mostly) California yuppies, that effect is vastly overstated. Even some of the diabetics I know on Ozempic have started using it as an excuse for a shittier diet. Now my sample size is barely ten people on Ozempic/Wegovy so take it with a grain of salt and what not, but I’m skeptical.

I bet there’s a large group of people - possibly over represented on HN and other online communities - that just need a little nudge to suppress their cravings and eat healthier, but that’s far from universal. For a lot of people, they wouldn’t even know where to start to eat healthier except choosing a salad over a burger at the takeout menu. Even with drugs masking cravings, many people just haven’t had good health or culinary education.

llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Odd Lots (Bloomberg finance podcast) had an episode back in June or something interviewing a food design consultant, and their focus groups came back very strongly in favor of healthier meal compositions. Agreed though, it's hard to know things :) Hopefully some real studies on this will be done soon.

leoqa 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Industry led focus group is not a legitimate source.

adastra22 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Depends on the focus group. Some are put together too establish that a product is wanted. Those are junk and useless. Others like this are designed to tease out trends and their accuracy is very valuable to the companies that commission them.

llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Uhhhh, in general this is true, but in this particular scenario they have a stronger incentive than almost anyone to understand true preference shifts created by these drugs.

It doesn't mean they end up with the correct findings, but they are absolutely incentivized to try to produce correct findings.

Lazy and inapplicable heuristics are not legitimate insights.

throwup238 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Did the consultant describe the change in focus group results or just the latest ones?

I was under the impression that consumers have been asking for healthier food compositions for decades, probably since the 70s or 80s when all the FUD around fat started. Maybe GLP1 agonists bring their buying choices more inline with the focus group results which would be an interesting phenomenon.

llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-]

I forget the design of the experiment but I remember feeling that my prior assumptions (which were in line with GP) were potentially wrong, so it must've been moderately convincing. I work in clinical trials so I'm not a complete buffoon on experiment design, but accordingly I'm also aware a good experiment is obscenely difficult to conduct, and obviously this was nothing close to an actual RCT.

burnt-resistor 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I take mirtazepene because it's the only antidepressant that works for me; unfortunately, it's also a massive orexigetic. And also unfortunately I have original Medicare that doesn't cover semaglutide until I develop additional heart problems or diabetes, so I'm forced to buy compounded semaglutide for 10% of the retail cost (but still higher than the rest of the world) out-of-pocket from a local large, retail, independent pharmacy that wouldn't risk bankruptcy selling fake medications.

And I don't eat meat for non-dietary reasons that include existential risks to all of humanity:

- Pandemics - Where did the "Spanish" flu (and influenza A, Asian flu, HK flu, and 2009 pandemics) and COVID come from?

- Antibiotic resistance - Most classes of antibiotics used in humans are also used to make industrially-farmed animals grow faster, leading to greater antibiotic resistance and more potential bacterial pandemics too

- Climate change - 17%, at least

- Air pollution - Not just the smell of pig crap in the air

- Water pollution - Ag runoff has been ruining river delta systems

- Soil pollution - (It's gross)

- Fewer available calories for total consumption

- More expensive foods by less supply and more demand

(Never bother with "meat is murder" dramatic preaching because most people who eat meat suffer from cognitive dissonance preventing them from admitting their lifestyle choice causes animal cruelty.)

When I was on and could afford semaglutide, I improved my diet by consuming a high protein product with a low calorie breakfast nutrition supplement. I'm sure I probably could've accomplished similar with a multivitamin and a protein product. What I need to change is eating more low calorie, high fiber fruits and vegetables that don't taste like cardboard or a mowed lawn. My diet has gone to shit again because the insatiable, all-consuming (no pun intended) hunger has returned. I can't afford semaglutide right now so I must become unhealtier than simply obesity in a similar but lesser way than women who can't get surgeries until they're septic and dying from failed ectopic pregnancies before it will be covered... because somehow obesity is completely my lack of willpower when I wasn't obese before mirtazapine.

123yawaworht456 5 days ago | parent [-]

no wonder you're depressed

astura 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>My understanding from initial anecdotes is this is actually literally wrong. Which was surprising to me, too. But people on GLPs tend to prefer more nutritious food (high protein and high fiber).

Not only that but prescribers and patients have noticed that GLP-1 agonists also appear to significantly reduce people's consumption of drugs like alcohol, nicotine and opioids. At least in some populations.

Much more research is needed but right now it's extremely promising that they will have a place in addiction treatment in the future.

llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yep! So far it looks like GLPs might just be a generic "craving-reducer." Pretty wild stuff if it holds (and we continue not to see significant adverse effects).

throwaway2037 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This observation is very interesting. I hope that it is studied more closely and we can read some peer reviewed research on the matter. One idea popped into my head: Could part of the cause be that people's mood and self-esteem improves during (GLP1 agonist-induced low hunger) weight loss? TL;DR: If you feel like shit about yourself (and body), then you are more likely to eat poorly, and vice versa.

llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-]

That's an excellent hypothesis. Wouldn't be surprised at all if that was a component!

zemvpferreira 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Losing weight without losing muscle mass is very hard.

I was with you up to here. In my experience it's easy to maintain a huge proportion of your lean tissue during a weight loss diet: Do some resistance training, get some protein, and don't lose weight too quickly.

There's no need to go to the extreme of a PSMF - which will still have you lose a bunch of muscle on account of being too big a deficit. If you can keep your calories reasonable while on a GLP1 agonist, there doesn't seem to be any reason you'll lose an exaggerated amount of muscle.

turbojet1321 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's notoriously hard to lose fat without also losing muscle. That's why bodybuilders bulk well past their target muscle mass before they cut for competition. I agree that you can do a lot to mitigate it through protein intake and resistance training, but you'll almost certainly still lose muscle when you're in caloric deficit, regardless.

anon84873628 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Furthermore, this effect is dependent on genetics. What is no problem for one guy in the comment thread could be very challenging for another.

Also, "just do proper resistance training" is a bit of a stretch when we're talking about what is practical to expect of the masses taking Ozempic.

zemvpferreira 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t mean to be rude but there are worlds of difference between your average SAD-fed 300lb person going from 60% to 30% bodyfat and a 259lb bodybuilder going from 20% to 5%. As long as you are minimally reasonable, catabolism is a luxury problem.

throwaway2037 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not sure why this is so heavily downvoted. You raise some good points. I would add: The era of comical bulking is coming to an end. More and more scientific literature points to modest calorie surplus is the key to muscle gain (along with regular weight training).

phil21 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bodybuilders I know seem to have a a very difficult time keeping their muscle gains while on a cut, I don’t know why someone who is not in a gym 5+ days a week and on an extremely optimized heavy protein diet measured down to the gram would expect otherwise.

Is it possible to go very slow and keep most of your lean muscle mass? Sure. Is it practical? I have my doubts.

Part of the effectiveness of these drugs - for me at least - is that results are rapid and that is a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Diets that had me losing 1lb/week were simply too boring and unmotivating for me to keep up beyond a few months. A few days of vacation “cheating” and you wipe out a month or more of incredibly difficult to achieve loss. Restricting yourself mentally in what you eat every day adds up to exhaustion over time.

Some folks can manage to lose very slowly while also adhering to a strict calorie deficit of a few hundred per day, while also being consistent with resistance training. I’d say the evidence shows that these folks are in the small minority.

I will say more evidence is needed for this drug class - especially where the harm reduction principle may be a bit iffy outside of obese folks. However it was life changing to me in the way it let me change my eating habits to very healthy protein and veggies as my primary calorie intake, as well as made going to the gym on a strict schedule motivating enough to actually come out at the end with a better bodyfat to lean muscle ratio than where I started.

These gains have continued since I hit my goal weight - and now I’m starting to become one of those folks who the BMI no longer applies to in a good way. I do wish there was a good way to test heart muscle mass like there is lean body mass with a DEXA scan as I’m curious if my increased regular workout heartrates translates into building back any heart muscle mass like it did other lean muscle. Certainly a concern to keep an eye out for!

I’m curious as you are if folks who are slow responders and live active lifestyles see the same muscle loss the hyper responders do. For reference I lost over 100lbs in just under 9mo. I absolutely lost considerable muscle mass, but have since put it back on and then some.

kbos87 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It isn't hard to imagine that the last 10% of mass a bodybuilder has added was hard won and easily lost. That isn't representative of most people.

ohyes 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I feel like a cut is a very specific type of weight loss where the person gets down to an unusually low body fat %. It’s to the point where each bit of fat loss is a significant portion of your body’s fat reserves. It seems different from when there is an abundance of easily accessible fat to burn.

cthalupa 5 days ago | parent [-]

Well, bulking and cutting cycles are pretty common for anyone beyond the beginniner stage when wanting to add muscle mass, even if they're more recreational or a powerlifter or whatever. It's just way more efficient to be in a large enough surplus to make hitting your macros easier and then diet after than it is to try and be super careful about it. The powerlifters aren't worried about getting down to that show ready <10%, they're just trying to not be fat, and they still lose some muscle.

twelve40 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In my experience it's easy

> Do some resistance training, get some protein

jeez, if people actually did that they wouldn't need the drug to begin with

throwaway2037 5 days ago | parent [-]

I must disagree with your comment. Personally, I have witnessed so many people struggle for years with their weight. Being overweight and struggling to lose weight must be a 50 factor model: Multiple social, economic, and mental/physical health factors. These GLP1 drugs really are a game changer.

twelve40 5 days ago | parent [-]

disagree with what? I said dieting, not cutting muscle and sticking to it long-term for most people is absurdly hard, which you seem to echo with "struggle for years"

throwaway2037 5 days ago | parent [-]

Apologies; I misread your comment. You are right.

cthalupa 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So, yes and no.

If you're doing resistance training for the first time in your life or the first time in years, noob gains will outpace loss if you train hard and get adequate protein. This is the case for a lot of people on these GLP-1s, at least at the start.

But if you have a massive quantity to lose, as in a multi-year process, you won't be able to keep up the noob gains for the entirety, and then yeah, you're going to basically just be training hard and shoving protein down your face just to keep the muscle loss minimal.

hehehheh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Intuitively, if you can lift a modest bench press (not novice, maybe beginner-intermediate) and you keep training and you consume a few fewer calories (not starve) why would you lose your strength.

Panzer04 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because the body does not make it easy to keep the same muscle with less fat.

For most people, it just doesn't really matter, because their strength is so far below their peak capability it won't be hard to cut some weight while maintaining strength. The closer you get to the edge of capabilities, though, the more it will matter.

cthalupa 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If you are outside of your noob gains period and keep up your protein intake and resistance training you will minimize your muscle loss, but you'll still see some.

Bodybuilders will even take AAS that explicitly reduce catabolism of muscle mass like Anavar and still lose some muscle on cuts.

Kirby64 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For the average overweight person? I disagree. The average obese person does little to no resistance training, eats very little protein, and wants to lose weight fast so they're not paying for expensive GLP1 drugs for a long period of time.

You're asking folks to make three separate changes: start exercising, change their diet to add protein, and use GLP1s to reduce food amount. And reducing food amount already goes against adding protein, so whatever protein they were getting is going to get cut even further.

astrange 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Increasing exercise also goes against reducing food amount, because it makes you hungrier.

bni 4 days ago | parent [-]

For me my cravings shifted from cookies/candy/ice cream to craving food that actually does something for my training, like a real meal.

Also for me if I go to crossfit after workday ends I don't get cravings the rest of that day. If anything I want to go to sleep instead of eating candy in front of the TV.

cthalupa 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm someone that used to be fit and lifted regularly. Got busy, got lazy, got fat. Tried multiple times to get not-fat after getting fat, and found it to be too difficult for me, despite it not being something I struggled with for many years earlier on in adulthood.

Getting on tirzepatide made it trivially easy for me to get back to a better diet, start exercising, etc. I do have to force myself to have an extra protein shake to hit my macros, though.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're trivalizing the ease at monitoring your diet for someone who has never done this before. 'Macros' as a concept is foreign to probably 90%+ of the population I suspect. Unless you go extremely strict on calorie/macro counting, it will just be hard to know exactly how much you're taking in. It basically becomes another hobby for at least a few months until it becomes somewhat natural to do.

XorNot 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean when I needed to lose weight (15kg, 85kg -> 70kg) I started with calorie restriction, and as a result of that actually looked at what I was eating and realized I was incredibly low on protein, and then from that added some daily light exercise partly just to avoid getting bored and wanting food.

So this isn't really 3 separate unrelated changes. Also at least in my experience, people tend to regard high protein things as the "energy dense" part of a meal - the problem with a lot of carbohydrates is they're not very filling.

The biggest problem with exercise is it's an awful way to lose weight - you don't burn that many calories, it makes you hungrier, and then your body optimizes to burn even less calories as you do it.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent [-]

> So this isn't really 3 separate unrelated changes. Also at least in my experience, people tend to regard high protein things as the "energy dense" part of a meal - the problem with a lot of carbohydrates is they're not very filling.

Who are these people? I suspect a lot of people who are overweight/obese and taking GLP1 drugs have very little to no concept of proteins role in their body composition. Essentially all a GLP1 drug does is modulate down your hunger (and you get full faster). That does not give you any of the tools or skills to create a diet or exercise plan. Both of those require intentional planning, research, skills, and time. They're definitely 3 separate things.

voisin 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you continue to eat a protein and nutrient deficient diet (which is probably a majority of Americans)

Is it true the majority of Americans eat a protein deficient diet? I always thought there was too much protein in the western diet - nearly at every meals versus how we would have evolved with somewhat limited access.

whythre 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of what Americans consume is really crappy carbs and sugar, unfortunately. Even fatty meats would be better than that.

dgfitz 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So, lots of foraging for food that grows on plants and the occasional bison?

Would that we could convert the world to diets like that.

loeg 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm pretty skeptical of the "this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets" claim. I suspect we're comparing apples to oranges rather than doing like-for-like comparisons at equivalent calories.

pottertheotter 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is true. I just lost 30 pounds over 3 months and 17% was muscle. I thought I was eating a lot of protein, but I’ve upped it today.

I did an InBody scan the day I started (8/21) and just happened to have done my second one this morning.

sheepscreek 5 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t think we can expect to retain 100% of muscle mass, and losing just 1/5th sounds like a good outcome.

I’ve understood that generalizing anything in today’s time is a losing game. I know many people with IBS/GI issues and I am also sure they have different underlying causes. Our gut biome and how digestion works in general needs to be researched much more.

I don’t know why progress has generally been so slowly on that front. For instance, GLP-1 was discovered in the 1970s. It took us another 40 years to commercialize it in the form of Semaglutide and another 10 years to get it ready for human consumption.

chunky1994 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd like to see the diets in the study that are specified as the "calorie-reduced diets". (Can't seem to find the paper). If it's the same as the Standard American Diet, this muscle loss is quite explainable. I think the mitigation is relatively easy though, if you want to shift the p-ratio, recommending a daily high protein shake would do a lot to stave off muscle loss (and even more if resistance training is applied of course). The exercise addition is probably the hardest to adhere to.

groby_b 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'd be surprised if either mice or human cells eat "the Standard American Diet"

throwaway2037 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

    > Losing weight without losing muscle mass is very hard.
Lots of amateur body builders can do it. There are whole training guides about how to lose body fat, but maintain as much muscle mass as possible. Granted, they are probably a minority because they have higher discipline and motivation than the average population.
cthalupa 5 days ago | parent [-]

Even pros on high doses of testosterone and multiple AAS lose some muscle mass when preparing for a show.

wisty 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Losing glycogen stored in muscle is not a huge issue IMO, as it should come back fast. Stuff that's easy to gain is usually easy to lose and vice versa.

hollerith 5 days ago | parent [-]

Uh, GP is talking about losing muscle itself, not the glycogen in muscle.

cthalupa 5 days ago | parent [-]

Well, these studies look at FFM, which does include your water weight and glycogen stores, so they do make up a portion of it.

hollerith 4 days ago | parent [-]

The point is that there is a big difference between depleting the store of glycogen, which can reliably be refilled in about 2 hours and the body's disassembling half the muscle mass, which takes many months to build back up if you even can build it back up to the original mass (unlikely if you are old).

cthalupa 4 days ago | parent [-]

No one is disputing that you can restore glycogen or water weight quickly.

But the issue is all of the studies I have looked at look at total FFM which does include the loss there. If you are on these GLP-1s there is water weight you are going to lose and keep off while on them due to the anti-inflammation effects, etc., and that water weight is going to be part of their calculations of FFM that has been lost.

hollerith 3 days ago | parent [-]

I understand now. Sorry for being slow to get it.

>Fat-free Mass (FFM) Encompasses all of the body's non-fat tissues, including the skeleton, water, muscle, connective tissue, and organ tissues.

uxp100 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nutrient deficient, sure, protein deficient? Probably not.

ipsento606 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The claim that "a majority of Americans" eat a protein deficient diet is absurd on its face.

ohyes 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Losing weight without losing muscle mass is very hard.

Yes it is.

> It requires extreme diets like a protein sparring modified fast where 80%+ of your calories are from lean protein while running a 50% caloric deficit.

I’m not any sort of expert but that sounds frankly, dangerous. I don’t see how you do something like that without damaging your liver.

It’s very possible to lose weight and gain muscle, but you have to be at just the right body composition (not lean and not obese) and then there’s a question of “over what period of time”?

Any duration under a month is probably pointless to measure unless you have some special equipment. Any duration over a month and it’s kind of obvious that it is possible. Eat a balanced diet without junk, work out regularly, and keep the calories to only what is necessary.

throwup238 5 days ago | parent [-]

> I’m not any sort of expert but that sounds frankly, dangerous. I don’t see how you do something like that without damaging your liver.

I haven’t seen any credible research that a healthy person can damage their liver from excessive protein intake. Someone suffering from liver disease needs to be careful, sure, but evidence that it would harm a healthy liver is practically nonexistent.

That said, PSMF is explicitly not a sustainable diet and proponents generally don’t claim it to be. It’s a short term diet meant to preserve muscle mass under extreme caloric restriction (under 1.2k calories).

> Eat a balanced diet without junk, work out regularly, and keep the calories to only what is necessary.

If it were as simple as that, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

turbojet1321 5 days ago | parent [-]

> If it were as simple as that, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

It pretty much is that simple. The problem is that simple is not easy.

anon291 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Part of the problem is that doctors recommendunhealthy diets and will dismiss healthy diets.

throwaway2037 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

    > nutrient deficient diet (which is probably a majority of Americans)
This is bullshit. Literally, I Googled for: what percent of americans have nutrient deficient diet?

First hit is some blogspam trying to sell me "Nutrient Therapy". Second hit is CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition-report/media/2nd-nutrition-rep...

    > The Second Nutrition Report found less than 10% of the U.S. population had nutrition deficiencies for selected indicators.
Another thing that people frequently overlook, since post WW2, the US has been "fortifying" grains with essential minerals and vitamins. That means when people eat cereal and bread from the supermarket (usually highly processed), there are plenty of minerals and vitamins. Say what you like about the highly processed part, few are nutrient deficient.
anon291 5 days ago | parent [-]

Part of the problem is that the standards are incorrect. If you go by dietary standards, you are eating way too many carbohydrates and likely eating too many times a day, especially if you do not have an active job.

Most people should mainly be eating fat and protein with a decent amount of grains and fruit and vegetables. However, the standard advice is to eat a lot of grains, some fruit and vegetables, a modest amount of protein, and little fat. This is awful and leads to very high hunger. Especially if you eat multiple meals a day, as is also commonly recommended, this is a recipe for being ever hungrier day by day.

It wasn't until I eschewed all advice, started eating one big meal a day and maybe one snack and matching my carb intake with my fat intake that the hunger that I had known since childhood magically disappeared and I lost 25 lbs (and am losing more). Finally a 'normal' weight seems not only in sight, but extremely easy!

andy_ppp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, my four donuts per day fill me up just fine or an extra large milkshake and a burger and I’m done for the day with food is definitely happening for some people. Let’s wait and see these drugs might prove to be very beneficial and more testing definitely needed.

bongodongobob 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Americans eat a shit ton of protein. No idea where you got idea that from.