| ▲ | dd8601fn a day ago |
| I really wish these weren’t forever drugs. I would be next in line. |
|
| ▲ | arjie a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Interesting. Part of the reason I was eager to use retatrutide was the reversibility. Fantastic drug and entirely reversible. I self-tested and the effects I had on it were reversed entirely in its absence. Similar to caffeine or amphetamine at the doses I have tried (which are not high), removing the intervention resulted in a return to a prior state over a fairly short period. I'd say that, in general, some of the good properties essential to an intervention for a non-debilitating condition are: * uniform dose-response: easy to increase effect by changing dose * reversibility: automatic reversion to pre-intervention in a short-term is gold standard - allows for regret escape * low-cost GLP-1 drugs have these properties which I like. I'm surprised to hear that someone would prefer the alternative, but I must imagine that cost and the dosing structure (sub-q injection is annoying) must dominate decision making here. |
| |
| ▲ | Balooga a day ago | parent [-] | | The side effect of drastic muscle loss isn't quickly reversible though. Because muscle is about 3x as expensive to maintain as fat, unless you are on some major strength training to maintain, muscle is the very first thing that your body gets rid of when losing weight. So now you are off the GLP-1. But you also have to eat fewer calories to maintain a calorie deficit because you no longer have all that calorie burning muscle. * And depending on when you start your GLP-1 journey, men when they hit 40 naturally lose between 5% and 8% of their total muscle mass ++a year++ a decade (women, probably earlier). In addition to the muscle loss due to weight loss. * And it takes approximately 3 times longer in your 50s to create a pound of muscle that it does in your 20s. * And you can't train like you did in your 20s or you will hurt yourself. * And as you age, your body can't absorb the protein it needs to build muscle as efficiently as it did when you are young. So you need to eat even more food to compensate. Ok. This is now more of a rant about getting older than it is about GLP-1s. -- Edited to reflect that muscle loss % is decade, per the corrections in replies. | | |
| ▲ | dahinds a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > men when they hit 40 naturally lose between 5% and 8% of their total muscle mass a year I think your numbers might be per decade, not per year? | | | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If I lost 5% of my muscle mass every year since I was forty I would only have 32% of my muscle mass left. At 8% I’d be down to 16% left. | | |
| ▲ | Balooga a day ago | parent [-] | | You are correct. It's per decade. Although some days it feels like I only have 16% left. |
| |
| ▲ | jtmarl1n a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are these factual claims? Seems a little fuzzy to me. | |
| ▲ | nujabe a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn’t have to be a foregone conclusion that GLP-1 causes muscle loss though. The primary reason for the muscle loss is the reduction in calories and protein intake. If you want to keep most of your muscle mass you can just make sure you keep up with your daily caloric and protein needs. | | |
| ▲ | Balooga a day ago | parent [-] | | Muscle requires protein, yes. Unfortunately, we don't get to keep unnecessary muscle just by eating protein. The body requires a lot less muscle to lug around 200 pounds than it did when lugging around 300 pounds. We have to do the strength training. "Use it, or lose it". |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rayiner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| GLP-1s aren’t “forever drugs.” They’re eliminated so fast from your system you need to keep taking them to keep the effect. That’s the opposite of a forever drug. If you go off them, you just return to the way you were. |
| |
| ▲ | SAI_Peregrinus a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think they mean they're drugs you have to keep taking forever (for the rest of your life) to keep the effects. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner a day ago | parent [-] | | Interesting. That usage is the opposite of “forever chemicals” though. Isn’t it a good thing GLP-1s don’t permanently change your body? | | |
| ▲ | SAI_Peregrinus a day ago | parent [-] | | It certainly can be a good thing! But it can also be considered a bad thing that you have to keep taking them, and have to keep paying for them forever. A one-time fix (a cure) can be more desirable than a lifelong treatment regimen. | | |
| ▲ | tancop a day ago | parent [-] | | how do you permanently cure obesity? you can try rewiring metabolism with crispr or some epigenetic changes but thats insanely risky, it would be very likely to mess up the immune system and give people cancer or nerve disorders. maybe i could see something based on modified gut bacteria that produce GLP-1 drugs inside your body. that would run into problems with dose regulation but at least you can flush them out with antibiotics if you get a bad response. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cassianoleal a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which means if you want to maintain their effect, you need to keep taking them forever. So maybe GP used the wrong term but I suspect they meant exactly this. In any case, we just don't know what kind of long-term effects these drugs have. No one knows what happens if you come out of them 30 years after you started. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you have the same concerns about water or food? Why does it matter that it stops benefitting you if you stop taking it? |
| |
| ▲ | jollyllama a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's possible to secure those independently in a wide variety of scenarios. It's harder to DIY your own GLPs. | |
| ▲ | dd8601fn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh god… if only I could quit food, too. | | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent [-] | | No but like... why is it a concern? Money? The health problems that GLPs produce help people avoid are way more costly than the drugs will ever be. Especially now that the market is so competitive and will only get moreso. | | |
| ▲ | treis a day ago | parent | next [-] | | For me, historically drugs like this for ADHD or depression or gastric bypass or whatever tend to lose effectiveness over time as the body adjusts. Not for everyone but for enough where you've got a short term gain that ultimately compounds the original problem. Medication can be a slippery slope into side effects and rotating dosages/medicines. Especially for behavioral medicines. | | |
| ▲ | astrange a day ago | parent [-] | | ADHD medications do not lose effectiveness over time. That's magnesium deficiency. | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > ADHD medications do not lose effectiveness over time. I mean, they're mostly stimulants, which definitely lose effectiveness over time. It would be really weird if they didn't as that's basically how our bodies work in general. Note: I have been prescribed said medication, but have not started taking them yet so I might be entirely wrong in the practicalities (and how would one disentangle the psychological impact of medication from the physiological impact?). | | |
| ▲ | estearum 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I had the same intuition as you but I looked it up in light of GP's comment and it actually seems not so clear that's how it works. Apparently the physiological effects of prescription ADHD meds will tend to still be ~same intensity for years and years. Patients often report weakened cognitive/psychological effectiveness, but obviously that's very hard to compare... | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Apparently the physiological effects of prescription ADHD meds will tend to still be ~same intensity for years and years. I'm not sure how one would even measure this. Like, back in the halcyon days of my youth I took a bunch of stimulants, and experentially there was definitely less impact over time (habituation is a thing). And given that ADHD is predominantly a psychological issue, then the only measure that matters is that of the patients themselves. Do you have some of the sources you mentioned available, I'd be interested to understand the details? | |
| ▲ | treis 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Practical experience is that people cycle through ADHD and depression meds. I agree that it's hard to tell what that means because we don't generally do long term double blind placebo studies. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The issue here is more complicated than just a lack of long term RCTs. It's that we're talking about psychological acclimation within individuals. Given that people's lives change so much, even within an RCT design it's not clear how you get an actual comparison of "effectiveness" from year 0 to year 4. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dd8601fn a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, money, and just signing up to regularly inject a thing forever. Anything that’s “starting tomorrow and until the day you die” just seems like a thing I shouldn’t take lightly. Also I’m not badly, badly overweight. So it’s not like “it’s this or cardiac arrest in a year or two”, for me. I should probably be dealing with my issues the old timey way. The stakes look very different for other people, obviously. |
|
| |
| ▲ | logicchains a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Water and food have a milder risk profile. The FDA (https://glp-1.health/blog/glp1-obesity-eligibility-bmi-chart...) recommends "GLP-1 weight loss medications (Wegovy, Zepbound) if your BMI is 30 or higher, or if your BMI is 27 or higher with at least one weight-related health condition such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or sleep apnea". This is because there are side effects such that GLP-1 meds have not been shown to produce a net positive benefit-to-risk ratio for people who are only mildly overweight. | | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent [-] | | > This is because there are side effects such that GLP-1 meds have not been shown to produce a net positive benefit-to-risk ratio for people who are only mildly overweight. Importantly, this is different from "GLP-1 meds have been shown not to produce a net positive benefit-to-risk ratio" Anyway nearly all of the side effects for these drugs are just discomfort. Not even really obvious they should be called "risks." Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans who are not already diabetic or have HTN will soon, and it would be quite a surprise to learn these drugs don't have protective effect. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dnautics a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| uniquely among maintenance drugs some people report saving money on GLP-1s, they spend less on food than the drugs cost... But think of the farmers! |
|
| ▲ | Analemma_ a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Bariatric surgery has most of the same upsides as GLP-1s and is a one-time cost. But I agree with the other commenters that "forever drug" is mostly fretting without an actual reason. The Hunger that engineered foods are deliberately designed to induce is a forever thing too, now there's a counterweapon. |
| |
| ▲ | dd8601fn a day ago | parent [-] | | If it sounded like I don’t think other people should take them, that was a mistake on my part. I’m just really not what you’d think of as a model candidate for them, so I’m not quite ready to commit to my first and only, not exactly free, rest of my life pharmaceutical dependence. That may not seem perfectly rational to some… but ya’know… I’m the one who has to live with my brain. |
|