Remix.run Logo
tomhoward 5 days ago

I'm not commenting specifically on the heart-muscle aspect of the study, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the weight loss from this drug is significantly attributable to muscle loss; it almost always is when dieting. It's the same with keto/low-carb or any other kind of caloric-restrictive dieting (which Ozempic facilitates).

The modern weight-loss programs I'm seeing now (at least those aimed mostly at middle-aged men) emphasize consuming significant amounts of protein (2g for every 1kg of body weight each day) and engaging in regular resistance training, in order to maintain muscle mass.

The article addresses this:

To keep muscle strong while losing weight, Prado says it is essential to focus on two main things: nutrition and exercise. Proper nutrition means getting enough high-quality protein, essential vitamins and minerals, and other “muscle-building” nutrients. Sometimes, this can include protein supplements to make sure the body has what it needs.

Perhaps there needs to be more formal research into this, and a strong recommendation made to everyone using these drugs that this kind of diet and exercise plan is vital.

ANewFormation 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The percents are very different. For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting, unless you're a Greek Grizzly, but the total muscle loss is relatively negligible, especially when maintaining a proper high protein diet.

At 40% muscle loss you're getting awful close to losing weight while increasing your body fat percent!

But of course you're right that diet+exercise is key but for those maintaining such, they wouldn't end up on these drugs to start with.

snozolli 5 days ago | parent [-]

For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting

This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids.

[1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, Clenbuterol (literally only approved for horses in the US), DNP, and probably more that I haven't heard of. Here's an NIH article on the dangers of DNP, to put it in perspective: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3550200/

cthalupa 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles.

Outside of noob gains it is incredibly difficult for a natural to add muscle mass when in a calorie deficit and recomposition at maintenance calories is also inefficient in the vast majority of cases.

They won't bulk the same way someone on gear does, but it's still the most efficient way to add muscle mass in the vast majority of cases.

snozolli 4 days ago | parent [-]

Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles

No, they don't. They simply eat enough to continue muscle growth and attempt to shed fat before a competition. Any non-competitor doing this is just engaging in quasi-religious nonsense or rationalizing a bad diet.

Bulking and cutting have meaning, and we're not going to turn it into any caloric surplus vs deficit.

cthalupa 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, I think you should go let the whole natural bodybuilding community that they're doing it wrong, as well all of the PhDs specializing in exercise science, including both the naturals and not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCpeRdUkegE can walk you through a handful of the latest studies.

You need to be in a caloric surplus to efficiently build muscle mass regardless of whether or not you're natural. I'm honestly confused how this is even an argument we're having. No one is saying you need to eat in 5000 calorie surplus as a natural, but everyone still refers to the period where you are in a caloric surplus as a bulk and a period where you are in a caloric deficit as a cut. This is not and has never been restricted to people on gear.

nightowl_games 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Jeff Nippard is a YouTuber, natural body building pro and record holder, and he takes about his bulk/cut cycle a lot. I don't know how you can so confidently say "No they don't" when it's literally impossible for you to make such a blanket statement.

brailsafe 3 days ago | parent [-]

I don't even have a dog in this fight, but if someone cited a YouTuber—particularly as their first qualifying attribute—as an authoritative source, I'd just laugh.

While some YouTubers may be correct about the things they talk about, or may even be doctors or researchers, I think we're in a pretty sus world if disputes about factual or even anecdotal information can come down to whether someone's watching and getting recommended the same content on a video site designed to exploit chronic viewing habits.

If your crowd does differently, just cite that, if they don't, speak from a place of speculation if that's what you'd like like them to do, because that's basically what watching YouTube does for a person.

cthalupa 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I wouldn't cite him as a YouTuber first, but Jeff Nippard is a a reputable source. He's competed and won in natural bodybuilding competitions, set powerlifting records for his province, partnered with PhDs in the field for studies on hypertrophy (and is one of the people leading the charge on 'lengthened partials' as being one of the most efficient ways to build muscle, which the research does agree with.)

But yes, he is also popular on youtube.

brailsafe a day ago | parent [-]

He seems like a reputable guy, and everything you mentioned is all probably best case scenario for someone who's not in a regulated profession or who's job it is to produce credible research. I'm not disputing that or him or any of his records (though incidentally it seems like his 1st place wins were in provinces with the fewest people), and I tend to enjoy his content. He also seems to have a bachelor's in biochem, also great, I don't.

I also like a bunch of other channels and have derived what feels like good information from them, I'd recommend them on that basis to people I felt would find it useful or entertaining. Just because I wouldn't cite them as an authoritative source doesn't mean it's a strike against them, it just means I don't think it's fair to tell someone they're wrong because my favorite YouTuber, even if they seem credible, well-natured, and are worth recommending, says X.

There are plenty out there doing good by their viewers and I love that, especially Canadian ones, but it's insufficient for being hyperbolic, imo, about what's impossible to make a claim about, and I don't think arguments from apparent authority are to be encouraged anyway.

In some cases, I've checked the advice of other MD content producers against real practitioners, and they've gave me the thumbs up in terms of credibility, and that obviously changes the vibe a bit, but still I'd hesitate to go too far with that, there's a lot people will do for money and attention.

nightowl_games 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're right. You dont have a dog in this fight.

brailsafe 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Thank you for your contribution

s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you claiming that a drug free person can gain as much muscle mass while in a calorie deficit as while in a calorie surplus?

If so, I would be very curious to that reference.

snozolli 4 days ago | parent [-]

What an utterly ridiculous extrapolation. These comments are exhausting. Bulking and cutting have a specific meaning, and it doesn't just mean eating at a sufficient caloric surplus to sustain muscle growth. That's simply called eating enough.

s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think you misread my comment.

automatic6131 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The most important cutting aids are the same ones in bulking - AAS like testosterone and its close (cheaper) variants like trenbolone and methylated testosterone but yeah, the interesting chemicals are featured too.

Most natural bodybuilders recommend the 'clean bulk' where one simply eats the same cutting foods but in larger proportions. And also not to be too strict in general - that way lies disordered eating, binges, purges etc.

sickofparadox 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In order to gain more muscle mass, at some point you need to be in a caloric surplus. You can't make something out of nothing - your body needs the extra resources to make itself bigger.

Funes- 5 days ago | parent [-]

You do know that your metabolism can pull energy out of your fat storages, right? And that metabolism is extremely flexible and adaptable, to be sure? Your body certainly isn't pulling out a calculator every night before you go to sleep to determine whether you've eaten in excess or not for the day, and then deciding to build muscle or not based on that alone. That's ridiculously simplistic, and wrong. It's a multitude of processes working constantly, and factors like exercise, protein intake or adaptation to ketosis, just to name a few, are of the utmost importance. Some people tend to think of the human metabolism as a calorimeter, when it couldn't be farther from it.

Sheeny96 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Whilst it is 95% calories in calories out, keto (not low carb, as low carb doesn't include high fat) can be good for muscle retention whilst in a defecit - as more foods that you consume naturally have higher protein (I utilise keto when looking to drop body fat, consuming a lot of slightly higher fat cuts of meat as a replacement for the carb calories, so chicken thighs instead of breast, 10% ground beef,etc). The higher fat content correlates to higher testosterone count, and higher protein means greater muscle retention.

5636553454654 5 days ago | parent [-]

Carbohydrate as an energy substrate is well-known to be more muscle protein-sparing when in a deficit than fat, so assuming protein is equal, expect to lose more muscle on keto than low-fat: https://r.jordan.im/download/nutrition/hall2021.pdf (c.f. p. 347, the bottom central and bottom right graphs)

greentxt 5 days ago | parent [-]

Carbs are harder to control for many people, and less forgiving. A side effect of keto is decreased appetite. A side effect of carbs is overeating.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Adherence may be a concern for lots of types of carbs, but that doesn't change the conclusion that keto (i.e., very little to no carbs) is worse for muscle retention when keeping caloric content equal. Also, as others have pointed out, not all carbs lead to overeating necessarily. Likewise, not all keto diets are going to lead to decreased appetite.

hombre_fatal 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Only when "carbs" is a euphemism for junk food. Which probably exists because Americans don't eat carbs like beans and broccoli. And instead of eating them, they get told online that they should avoid all carbs.

It's a devious euphemism that screws the people over the most that should be eating more beans and broccoli (et al).

s1artibartfast 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Carbs is also colloquialism for calorie dense grains and cereals. Broccoli is like 5% carbs by mass. Bread is 50% carbs by mass. It is a hell of a lot easier to overconsume the latter, spike your insulin, and get into a cycle of cravings.

There is no boogie man trying to scare people away from broccoli.

consteval 4 days ago | parent [-]

> There is no boogie man trying to scare people away from broccoli

I disagree, everyone I know who has been on a keto dietic consumes little to no fruits or fiber. Honestly, I'm not sure how they use the bathroom successfully with such little fiber ingestion.

xenonite 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well the answer to that is to eat more fat.

bityard 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I ate only keto for years and I'm getting back to it now so I have some experience to speak of.

You are correct, fruit is mostly sugar so no fruits. Some keto adherents allow the occasional handful of berries, but I found that just made me unreasonably hungry later on. Not everyone has this reaction, though.

There is plenty of fiber in above-ground vegetables. And even if there wasn't, it's not like eating only meat would kill you, humans evolved on the plains and/or jungles of Africa where meat was almost all that was easily available.

s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are talking very specifically about a ketogenic diet, then fruits actually do have too many carbs to maintain ketosis. In that case, it isn't some irrational fear, but reality.

Re fiber, A significant portion of the population (maybe a majority) doesn't need much fiber to use the bathroom. It seems like this need is a common situation that people assume is a universal truth. Further, fiber can lead to constipation for many people.

cthalupa 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Fruits, yes, because it will kick you out of ketosis. Fiber, every keto adherent I knew would eat fiber in reasonably large quantities because keto often causes constipation, and a lot of the substitutes for things with "regular" carbs were high in fiber.

Wytwwww 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> broccoli

Have almost no carbs or any calories, they are basically just water. Like you'd need to eat 1kg just to get 300 calories (less than in e.g. 100g chickpeas).

hombre_fatal 4 days ago | parent [-]

They are 75% carbs. Don't miss the point in your focus on one thing that I said. Replace it with sweet potatoes, carrots, and any other health promoting vegetable that Americans don't eat (and when they do, without slathering in sugar/fat).

Sohcahtoa82 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> They are 75% carbs.

75% of the calories in broccoli is from carbs, sure, but because the overall calorie content of broccoli is so low, it's still considered low carb.

https://www.nutritionix.com/food/broccoli/1-cup

A 1-cup, 156-gram serving is 55 calories, 11g carbs, and 5g fiber, so is only 6g of net carbs for keto purposes.

s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How are you getting 75%? I see 10g of garbs in 150g of broccoli. That is closer to 7%.

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

To be clear, these recommendations are already made very clearly before you take the medication. There is absolutely nothing in your comment that isn’t already clearly spelled out. Your last paragraph is literally already being done.

This isn’t a surprise unless people ignored reading about the drugs before taking it and ignored the doctors.

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

It's why the medication should never be given to people on its own (although I'm sure it happens all the time), but should be a part of a comprehensive weight loss, exercise and dietary plan. Same with other invasive weight loss treatments, you can't just get a gastric belt or whatever fitted if you ask for it, you need to do the work yourself first, and you get a diet plan assigned if you do end up with one.

It's the same with e.g. human growth hormones, one theory is that Elon Musk is / has used them, but without the weight training that should go with it, so his body has developed really weirdly.

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

I've heard this feedback on Ozempic et al from my wife who is a GP some 6 months ago, when I mentioned how US is too much in comfort zone and addicted to HFCS to actually lose weight permanently, ever, so in good old weight-losing fads fashion they will just throw money at the problem, experiencing somewhat variable success and who knows what bad side effects.

My wife told me exactly this - potentially all muscle mass loss (and she made sure I understood that 'all' part), yoyo effect once stopping, potentially other nasty long term/permanent side effects, and overall just a bad idea, attacking the problem from a very wrong direction. Just look at musk for example - he pumps himself with it obsessively and the results even for richest of this world are... not much there (or maybe his OCD binging would make him 200kg otherwise so this is actually some success).

Then all the folks come who say how to helped them kickstart a positive change, like its something against those facts above. All the power to you, just don't ignore facts out there and don't let emotions steer your decisions. You only have 1 health and it doesn't recharge that much, and that short time we have on this pale blue dot is significantly more miserable and shorter with badly damaged health.

JumpCrisscross 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> like its something against those facts above

I’ve seen multiple friends go from eating like shit, including chugging sodas, to not compulsively ordering dessert and no sodas in the house. I think all of them have since quit Ozempic, each seeing some rebound but nothing comprehensive and, most notably to your argument, not in the behaviour modifications.

MrMcCall 5 days ago | parent [-]

The only way to lose weight without damaging oneself is to combine more exercise with less eating, which means becoming comfortable being hungry. Yes, it's difficult -- especially after developing bad eating habits over a long time -- but moderation is required in all things. It takes a long time to become overweight, so the ramp down to a leaner existence must necessarily take a significant amount of time, or there's going to be added risk.

Just like in programming, there is no silver bullet; there's only hard work.

vundercind 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's true for an individual, but if you're looking at a population then you're seeing a situation where we have zero other solutions that are actually effective at curbing obesity. The only "natural" way to solve it is probably to overhaul our entire culture, redesign our cities and neighborhoods, et c., and that's not happening.

Skinny people move to the US and get fat. They're not skinnier back in their home country because they've got greater willpower or are harder workers, but because they aren't in the US. If harder work isn't why skinnier countries are skinnier, we shouldn't expect it to help us out of our problem, and indeed, we have nothing else we've studied that is terribly effective over time, and certainly nothing cheap enough to deploy on a large scale.

Again, yes, for an individual your perspective is the only thing one has (well... until these drugs) but looking from a policy level, it's useless.

MrMcCall 5 days ago | parent [-]

A person's body mass is nothing more than the combination of what a person eats and what a person does in their life.

The only really effective policy is to inform people that that is the simple, honest truth of every single person, and that the quality of food we eat is important in that equation.

Eat better food, be more active. Yes, it is difficult, especially for us peasants.

But that is science. I hope a miracle drug helps folks preyed upon by the food industry, but side effects of that industry's drugs leave me skeptical of their being lastingly beneficial.

vundercind 5 days ago | parent [-]

> The only really effective policy is to inform people that that is the simple, honest truth of every single person, and that the quality of food we eat is important in that equation.

It's literally not effective. As in, well-studied, isn't effective.

Again, it's the only guidance one has to go on, personally, so it's fine to hold onto that as an individual navigating the world, but it is emphatically not effective policy.

MrMcCall 5 days ago | parent [-]

I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body; it's thermodynamics and biochemistry and hard as hell as we get older, especially when poor.

But sure, it's not effective but only because people have a hard time fending off our cravings. It requires breaking our cycles and learning how to eat better and eat less and do something other than lay around watching tv.

As to policy: if we curbed the corps' ability to profit off our ill-health, then we'd surely be doing something positive for society. It would also be very helpful to have cleaner air and more and larger parks that are safe for one and all. What can I say, I dream big.

Personally, I recommend everyone avoid any and all refined sugar and alcohol, as they mess with our hormones and gut biome. And that's very difficult for 2024 America, evidently.

hollerith 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body

That is like dismissing a bug report because "it works fine on my machine", though.

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

Yes, it works if you do it. No, relying on it to get a population to lose weight doesn't work, even if that population has self-selected for wanting to lose weight and you educate the hell out of them.

unshavedyak 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I wrestled in high school and college, my friend. If you don't eat and work out a lot, you will lose weight, guaranteed. It's the nature of the human body; it's thermodynamics and biochemistry and hard as hell as we get older, especially when poor.

No one is questioning CICO.

The part being questioned is why it's more difficult for others. For example, my wife and I share an almost identical diet and activity level, yet i struggle to keep weight on and she struggles to keep weight off and with similar lifestyles. CICO works of course, but not only do our bodies innately do different things with the calories that they process but we simply experience that world differently.

I could drop down to unhealthily thin levels without even trying. She would be in misery even trying to maintain my weight.

This isn't an excuse necessarily. Rather just saying there's a lot of information beyond simple CICO that we're missing. Complexity in biome, addictive behaviors, and a full on assault from the food industry.

The ease i have in weight loss is not due to my own efforts. Thin people shouldn't break their arm patting themselves on the back, because imo it's usually not due to our own will.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent [-]

> The part being questioned is why it's more difficult for others. For example, my wife and I share an almost identical diet and activity level, yet i struggle to keep weight on and she struggles to keep weight off and with similar lifestyles. CICO works of course, but not only do our bodies innately do different things with the calories that they process but we simply experience that world differently.

If you and your wife eat the same diet in the same quantities, it's no surprise she would have a propensity to gain weight and you wouldn't unless she's substanially larger (i.e., taller and/or heavier) than you. Women in general just burn fewer calories for similar sized vs. men. That said, this is ALL population averages. Everyone knows someone who seems to be able to eat literally anything and never gain weight... it likely is just as simple as their metabolism is such that they burn more calories than the average person. Population variation will always lead to some people with outliers both in high expenditure and low expenditure.

unshavedyak 4 days ago | parent [-]

> it likely is just as simple as their metabolism is such that they burn more calories than the average person. Population variation will always lead to some people with outliers both in high expenditure and low expenditure.

That's the point though. I'm saying that we burn calories at different rates. We burn fat at different rates. We have different rates of addiction, cravings, etc.

Just saying CICO is the same boring and borderline inaccurate language that has led to nearly zero change in the population at large. may as well just tell them to use physics correctly to lose the weight, because it's the same effective language.

To even determine CICO is fraught with difficulty and inaccuracy in both CI and CO. You can hand make everything, weigh every ingredient, and even then you struggle to determine how much you're CO. At best you'll have an estimated CO but then what do you do when your weight isn't changing? you have to start adjusting the math because clearly you're not burning as much as you think you are.

This is made much, much worse with the fact that we don't actually burn that many calories with exercise. And even with what is burned, the rate of burn changes drastically based on your current weight and how long you've been losing weight.

The fact is, the point is, CICO ignores all the real challenges and thereby all the real problems people need to understand and face.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent [-]

> The fact is, the point is, CICO ignores all the real challenges and thereby all the real problems people need to understand and face.

I think we'll have to disagree here. At the end of the day CICO is the formula. That obviously doesn't account for the human factor in regards to the adherenace rate, but it does, fully encompass the 'if you were a robot and were fully adherent how do you lose/gain weight' method.

> To even determine CICO is fraught with difficulty and inaccuracy in both CI and CO. You can hand make everything, weigh every ingredient, and even then you struggle to determine how much you're CO. At best you'll have an estimated CO but then what do you do when your weight isn't changing? you have to start adjusting the math because clearly you're not burning as much as you think you are.

I won't say it's 'easy', but it's also not particularly hard either with the multitude of widely available food databases for measuring calories in. As for calories out, it's arguably even simpler: measure your weight every day, take the average across the week, and watch your weight trend week over week. Calories out can be calculated simply by comparing calories in vs. weight lost/gained... and extrapolating. It's simple math, and very effective in my experience.

> This is made much, much worse with the fact that we don't actually burn that many calories with exercise. And even with what is burned, the rate of burn changes drastically based on your current weight and how long you've been losing weight.

Essentially irrelevant if you follow my above suggestion for how to measure calories out. It's just part of the bucket of calories burned, so as long as you're reasonably consistent with the amount of exercise you do then your averaged weight will account for any exercise based caloric expenditure.

JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | parent [-]

> CICO is the formula

This is like trying to solve aerodynamics with Newtonian physics only. It’s not useful. CICO ignores the variability of base metabolism.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent [-]

What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight? The intake is easy to measure. The outtake is empirically knowable by change in weight over time. It’s really that simple.

JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | parent [-]

> What does base metabolic variability have to do with using CICO to modify your weight?

Metabolic syndrom is characterised by the basal metabolic rate reducing in response to reduced calorie intake or increased caloric expenditure. In most of us this is good. It gets the immune system to quit mucking around, for instance. In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells.

You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.)

CICO reminds me of something we do in finance: burying the complexity in a magic variable. For CICO, it's the CO. Because if you decompose it into its active and inactive components. Exercise is the former. But the latter absolutely dominates that term.

Kirby64 4 days ago | parent [-]

> In the obese, however, it can sometimes mean their bodies will literally stop doing essential shit before it will concede and begin burning fat. It will then do everything it can to refill those fat cells.

I’m sure there’s some people that this might apply to, but I suspect it’s a much (much) smaller subset than people that are actually obese. For the rest, just decrease your intake until you lose weight. Not much else.

> You can model a human thermodynamically. But to my knowledge, this isn't used in medicine because it isn't practical. (I'm saying this, by the way, as someone who can eat anything and laze around and not gain weight because my metabolism is tuned the other way.)

Exactly what variables are missing then? We can agree that exercise, although certainly burns some calories, is not really the lever you want to pull if you actually want to lose weight by itself. What other variable besides changing how much food you eat would you suggest?

unshavedyak 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's the point of the discussion, imo. It seems to be an area of research. There's a lot of questions in my view. Why are people so addicted to food? Why do some models of caloric restriction not work as well as they should? How do we embed behavioral change, or do some of these people just have to be in misery for the rest of their lives?

It's not a profound statement to say if you starve in a desert you'll lose weight. The question is how we can apply this to real, normal people. Or if it's even possible in a food-weaponized world.

My view is that we're in the realm of addiction more so than simply answering "how" they mechanically lose weight. This is a public health crisis, one we need to be open to exploring.

Kirby64 3 days ago | parent [-]

Again, food addiction and satiety is a different question than if CICO works. If you can't stop eating and cram too many calories because you eat too many... burgers and potato chips or whatever, that has nothing to do with if CICO works. I have yet to see evidence that shows that caloric restriction if properly, truly controlled, does not result in weight loss for the vast, vast majority of obese individuals. People are notoriously bad at estimating calories and knowing how much they eat, so any study that is self-reported is inherently going to be problematic.

Should we do more research to find if anything anything specific that may be causing overeating or food non-satiety? Sure. Is the answer likely to be something that is essentially 'tastier food is easier to overeat, and tastier food is much more available than it used to be'? I suspect that is the likely conclusion.

I think GLP1 agonists are a great tool to be used to create that so-called 'willpower' to stop overeating (or, an easy way to reduce food noise, whatever you want to call it). The next step is figuring out how, as a society, we make it easier for folks to make that lifestyle change without a constant stream of 'willpower drugs' for the rest of their life.

unshavedyak 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Again, food addiction and satiety is a different question than if CICO works.

Yes, and again - as i said previously. No one is questioning if CICO works. That's like if questioning if physics works. No one is doing that. The laws of the universe are still intact. Talking about humans is the constructive conversion most people are having.

Kirby64 3 days ago | parent [-]

> No one is questioning if CICO works. That's like if questioning if physics works. No one is doing that. The laws of the universe are still intact.

Other people are, in fact, questioning CICO. Look at the other commenter talking about base metabolism changes.

To put an analogy to this: Gambling addicts often lose lots of money at casinos. The behaviors that lead to them being addicted to gambling are in many ways likely equivalent to overeating problems. Nobody asks 'why are gambling addicts losing money?' because we know the reason (casinos have the house edge... you always lose on aggregate). And yet, with food, people consistently ask the question 'why are people so obese?' as if the answer isn't very obvious: they're eating too much food. It's purely as simple as that. The behaviors that lead to eating too much aren't nearly as focused on, in my opinion. Much time is spent on 'the kinds of foods eaten' and how specific things are bad for you, which is essentially like arguing that people should play more blackjack and less roulette or something.

unshavedyak 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Other people are, in fact, questioning CICO. Look at the other commenter talking about base metabolism changes.

I disagree. CICO is fundamental physics. Just because metabolism changes does not mean you can produce more energy than you take in. CICO always applies, and it's so 'duh' that it's nearly pointless to discuss in my mind.

Their points about metabolism changes is that the details matter. Finding a way to break the cycle will yield more gains with the population than telling people to starve in a desert.

Kirby64 2 days ago | parent [-]

Metabolism changes are metabolism changes. What does the food you eat have anything to do with that, in practice? As far as I can tell, the mix of carbs/fat/protein has little to do with how much your body “compensates” from a surplus/deficit. If you don’t meaningfully have control over that, the only other real lever is how many calories you eat. Finding a way to lower calories without satiety problems or food noise issues ultimately is the solution. Some people do it via lots of low caloric foods (veg, mainly) that still have high satiety. Some people do it with Ozempic. Some people just aren’t bothered nearly as much by a caloric deficit no matter what they eat.

consteval 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The only way to lose weight without damaging oneself is to combine more exercise with less eating, which means becoming comfortable being hungry

No, not really. Yes, this is how you lose weight, but this is not how you have to be to be a healthy weight.

I'm thin, I don't exercise, and I'm not hungry. I feel great.

I can sit around and jerk myself off about discipline, but the truth is I have none. I have done absolutely nothing to be in this position, it's all luck and factors far beyond my comprehension.

if a drug is able to induce that same feeling in others, I say go for it. It sucks that a normal caloric intake translates to pain, hunger, and constant brain noise for a large segment of the population.

5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
462436347 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> addicted to HFCS

HFCS consumption (along with added sugar consumption in general) peaked in 2000 and declined steadily until 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38094768

hombre_fatal 4 days ago | parent [-]

It doesn't give me much confidence bringing it up at all in this convo. As if replacing HFCS with cane sugar (55% vs 50% fructose) changes anything about junk food.

462436347 3 days ago | parent [-]

Consumption of HFCS and added sugar are both down significantly since 2000, with the decline in the former driving the overall decline in the latter.

gonzo 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> (2g for every 1kg of body weight each day)

This equates to a 300lb male consuming 272g of protein per day. There are 139g of protein in 1lb of chicken breast.

The RDA to prevent deficiency for an average sedentary adult is 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. A 300lb male needs about 110g/day at this RDA.

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

For the people who lift weights while on this/these drugs, how much lean muscle do they lose?

The point is is that most people lose muscle because they’re not lifting. You will lose muscle if you lose weight no matter the cause, if you are not lifting weights.

phil21 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure how much I lost during, but a substantial amount. I have been working out since about 20lbs from my goal weight and now roughly a year later - and have gained strength (based on the numbers I can lift) from before I lost 100lbs.

I don’t think it would have been possible to not lose substantial muscle mass while rapidly losing 100lbs over 9mo, even with extreme resistance training added to the mix. While DEXA scans are not super accurate, I’ve put on about 17lbs of muscle since my first scan 10mo ago, while maintaining a 12% or less bodyfat ratio.

That said, I’ve been eating extremely healthy both before and after being on the drug which helps a lot. The drug simply gave me the mental space to avoid the binges which were my particular problem. That and it controls portion sizes to European dinner vs. American restaurant sized meals for me.

Agingcoder 5 days ago | parent [-]

100 lbs that’s significant. What are the implications of rapidly losing weight ? ( I’d expect even your body image changing to not be very easy )

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

> For the people who lift weights while on this/these drugs, how much lean muscle do they lose?

I was 92kg when I started on liraglutide (I was doing GLP-1 agonists before it was cool!) and 67% of muscle mass (61kg). I'm now at 69kg and 82% of muscle mass (56kg). I'm doing weight and resistance training twice a week, in addition to aerobic training.

One nice thing, while muscles don't become more massive, they for sure become more pronounced and visible with weight loss.

scotty79 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'd bet you are stronger now despite slightly lower muscle mass.

Probably the muscle tissue people lose first are crappy cells. Weak, nonfunctional, senescent or even maybe some muscle embedded fat.

cyberax 4 days ago | parent [-]

Muscle cells don't get replaced or cleaned. Like neurons, they basically stick around throughout the whole life.

Instead, it's the cells themselves that grow bigger or smaller.

metafunctor 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Those muscle mass percentages cannot be right. How were they measured?

NovemberWhiskey 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’m assuming that’s lean mass (100% - fat %) rather than muscle mass. Unless that person doesn’t have a skeleton.

cyberax 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Just the total mass minus the fat mass. Any further breakdown is not particularly useful.

scruple 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I know 2 competitive athletes (both MMA) who experimented with it. Both came off of it within ~6 weeks because of complications, mostly related to mood (they got very, very temperamental on it). The athletes in my sphere know about it but aren't interested. The 2 who experimented have a non-trivial social media presence and, ultimately, that is what drove them to experiment.

cma 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On top of that wouldn't even liposuction already reduce heart muscle over time because of the lower amount of vasculature extent afterwards? Less volume to need to pump through and less metabolic and oxygen demand.

There is significant heart remodeling after even things like major amputations because of the changing demands on the heart.

0xEF 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Diet and exercise. It always comes back to that, yet people avoid it like the plague.

The modern weight loss program you described is pushed because that's what people want; an extremely low-effort methodology that yields extremely high results.

The idea that their is some silver bullet to weight loss has dominated the US health market for ages now because selling someone a pill that they don't have to do anything but swallow and be cured is really, really easy.

Having gone through my own weight loss journey, I have seen first hand how attractive that is and fell for it myself twice. So have loved ones, one whom is no longer the same person because they got gastric bypass which resulted in a massive change to gut and brain chemistry, something that we seem to be just figuring out is connected. My own journey is not over, but there are no longer any medications or supplements involved, because I can say with authority that none of them work without good nutrition and physical exercise.

As I realized this and just put more work into eating better and doing more activities (I did not join a gym, but started riding my bicycle more, walking neighbor's dogs, and doing body-weight exercises at home, etc, making it more integrated into my day rather than a separate event I could skip), I lost a healthy amount of weight and got stronger.

It took a lot longer, of course, than what the pills promised, but that's the trick of the whole weight loss industry...and make no mistake, it is an industry. Short-term results in exchange for your money. It was never about helping people be healthier and always about myopic profits, therefore we should not be trusting any claims these companies make that their silver bullet is the correct one, finally.

And yet.

jstummbillig 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The modern weight loss program you described is pushed because that's what people want; an extremely low-effort methodology that yields extremely high results.

I think it's a mistake to think of it as what people want. It's what people can do.

We have to acknowledge a fundamental struggle that we have with dieting and working out. Pretending it's just hard, when statistics show what is true at a societal level, will not bring us solutions.

We need something else. Either that's massive societal change to i.e. approach something like the diet/workout culture you have in Japan. That's hard. Or, as with many other of our health problems that we can't just will away, it's drugs.

Not believing in progress here, when drugs progress everywhere, is unnecessary. Current generations might have issues. Drugs will be better. We won't.

0xEF 5 days ago | parent [-]

I still disagree. Simplicity and convenience is what people not only want, but demand. And this extends beyond weight loss solutions to our modern world of ever-converging technologies creating ever-complex systems under the guise of efficiency. Multiple cultures have supported these values since the times of snake-oil salesmen, which did not exactly vanish with history, as we so often forget. Look at products like Optavia, Xenedrine, etc.

It keeps happening because the market wills it to, but not without good reason. It is perfectly rational to want something to be easy, especially now as our modern lives are inundated with a tremendous amount of stressors and tasks we must constantly attend to. So yes, we wish for convenience, but it is not the solution we always need.

jstummbillig 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Simplicity and convenience is what people not only want, but demand.

Hmm, that is not my experience generally. People will take insanely ineffective routes if that is what the system pushes them toward, without taking much offense.

For example, on the topic of health/weight loss: Weight Watchers or yoga classes are huge industries while also being insanely elaborate and expensive ways of eating better and moving your body.

I agree with you that, for example, drugs are currently not a solution to these problems. But what I propose is: they are going to be. And they had better be because there is no other effective solution poised to work at a societal scale. We just can’t help ourselves. “Just eat the salad and walk every day” simply did not do the trick. We tried. While it works on a mechanistic level, of course, it does not work in practice. Blaming people for their inability to fight their nature is just inhumane and not how we usually progress: we fix reality for ourselves.

While it is not impossible to design a society that is healthier (see: Japan), it’s at such odds with our current culture, and societal change is slow. We should certainly get to work on this decades-long project, but we should also treat this like any other health issue that costs billions of life-years and find a more effective intervention.

autoexec 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Blaming people for their inability to fight their nature is just inhumane

It'd be nice if people didn't have to fight their nature. Our society demands we act in ways that are unhealthy and unnatural. We're forced to sit in chairs 8+ hours a day from very young ages. Children have teachers making sure they stay in their seats, and workers have supervisors enforcing inactivity either in person or using webcams and software. Companies like Amazon insist that their employees piss in bottles or wear diapers because leaving their workstation, even to use a bathroom, will get them fired. The demands of our daily lives and the design of our environments keep us from living the way we've evolved to live and it's normal and should be expected that many people will struggle with that reality more than others.

Either our society and environment needs to change, or our biology and chemistry need to change. Turns out, it's easier to change ourselves than it is to change the massive systems designed by greed and exploitation that we're forced to live in. We'll adapt. Today it's with drugs. Tomorrow it may be genetic manipulation.

s1artibartfast 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think some people feel strongly about this issue because it seems like giving up on societal change, which IS necessary for many reasons besides just weight. Even if GLP-1 drugs are safe and long term effective for body fat, they are still a band-aid for a deeper problem. The deeper problem is that people feel and express less and less agency and control over their personal lives. This manifests in many forms, such as depression, anger, cynicism, addiction, loneliness, and personal stagnation. Weight loss will do little to improve these measures while the average American watches 4 hours of TV and is devoid of community.

Im hopeful that these drugs can give people a toehold to tackle these deeper issues, and try to emphasize that they are not a panacea.

People are a product of society, and society is a product of people. If we want to live better people will have to change too.

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

I don’t think anyone is disputing that changes to diet and exercise are required.

Based on people who I know have been taking these drugs, they make it much easier to reduce calorie intake by promoting satiety. That’s the benefit.

Doing the rest of your life while you feel hungry is not fun, and willpower is not infinite.

1234letshaveatw 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know it is always avoidance when it comes to diet and exercise. I think oftentimes it comes down to overscheduling. I like to exercise, I like to eat healthy. Those two are oftentimes the first things on my chopping block when I am hurried

in_a_hole 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How has the gastric bypass affected this person? It would not have occurred to me that the brain would be affected.

0xEF 5 days ago | parent [-]

We were surprised, too. Their personality changed to be a lot more aggressive and they started compulsively lying, then stealing things from stores, and some strange draw toward self-harm and getting "corrective" surgeries. Previously, this person was typically pleasant, if not a little outspoken at times.

There is suspicion that they had a pre-existing mental health issue they were hiding, and the very fast changes that happened in their body triggered it to either manifest or get worse. We are left guessing because they refuse to see any doctors that won't just write prescriptions for meds or minor elective surgeries, now.

These days, more and more evidence is piling up about the gut-brain connection, but no conclusions are being drawn quite yet. Though, from my own experience, it is not difficult to convince me that one certainly impacts the other.

in_a_hole 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry to hear that happened to someone close to you, thank you for sharing.