6 ms·

The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. So unless you are underweight, the benefits co

The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. So unless you are underweight, the benefits could outweigh any side effects. I am not advocating that everyone take these drugs--but I understand why someone might suggest it

UncleEntity 4y ago
Why would I need a drug for that? I could probably just eat better (ie not one meal a day) and get “healthy”…not that I’m unhealthy now. Maybe, I prefer to live in denial. Three small meals a day and cut out the snacks and no drugs for me to take for the rest of my life.
ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
> The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. Has this been proven in humans? The last review article I read mentioned that it was true for lab mice, but resulted in a suppressed immune response, which would result in early mortality for mice not living in a sterile (specific pathogen free; SPF) labitat.
- leesec 4y ago
  >Has this been proven in humans? Seems like it but it still might not be worth it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/12/acc-does-calorie-restriction-slow-aging/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/12/acc-does-calorie-restr...
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
This is false. You burn ~50 calories per hour doing nothing. You're saying that the only way to live longer is to lay down and do nothing and IV ~50 calories per hour into your body. You're not going to live very long like that. You're obviously not going to live very long if you simply never eat and starve to death.
jononomo 4y ago
Why not just follow a diet of only beef, eggs, and liver? This is the most nutrient dense diet you can follow and as a result you'll reduce your calorie intake while increasing your feelings of satiety. Also, you'll resolve a dozen major and minor health conditions.
Tumblewood 4y ago
The main point against it for me is not that it is a new drug; it is that, if I reduce my caloric intake, I won't have enough calories to maintain my normal daily activity levels.
runnerup 4y ago
The parent post said: > everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs But as a skinny person, I can already easily reduce caloric intake as much as I want to. My body is "blessed" with weak food cravings and solid blood glucose levels while fasting. So while I do recommend these drugs to people who need them, I don't think they'd help me at all more than merely deciding one day to monitor and control my weight to a very narrow target range. It's like the opposite of "its easy! Just eat less!" ... you guys are telling skinny people "Oh but eating at a maintenance/deficit will be too hard for you to do just by thinking you want to! You'll need a drug!" I can easily lose 20-40 lbs just by getting lazy and not cooking myself food. It's literally no challenge at all. But neither is gaining 20-40 lbs when I want to. I know this is relatively unique, I don't blame obese people for "lack of will". I know they have different biochemistry because it doesn't take me any willpower to gain or lose weight on demand. It's literally as effortless as deciding to wear more dressy clothes this year. I'm 6-foot tall and I can set and indefinitely maintain almost any weight I want between 145 and 200 lbs within +/- 3 lbs, with very little effort. Over 190 lbs gets a bit hard to maintain, under 155 also gets a bit hard to maintain. Supposedly "normal" BMI for my height goes all the way down to 136 lbs but I think that's probably total bullshit -- that's very, very, very skinny.
- scarmig 4y ago
  I'd be curious as to what the effects would actually be on you (though I agree that it seems at best useless and potentially harmful for you). Would your weight zone shift downwards, or would it do nothing?
- at-w 4y ago
  To be fair our ideas of normal are extremely skewed. If you look at photos from say 1962, you'd consider most people "skinny" (even photos of places like the US). Yet even then, 23% of American adults were obese according to the CDC. Even in 1987, the actor that played Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket gained 75lbs to play a comically obese Marine. Today he looks fitter than most people you'd see everyday. If you look at the US today, an average of just 1 in 4 people are not medically overweight or obese. What was considered (and is factually) obese, is now considered "chubby" or "curvy" if not normal by most Americans for whom that is normal.
BobbyJo 4y ago
> The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. The problem with this is how a continuous caloric deficit affects your quality of life. Your body tends to adapt by making you feel tired and killing your libido. Not to mention that being underweight becomes a health hazard past a certain age. IMO, if you aren't overweight, eating a healthy diet and enough calories to maintain your weight will give you the best combination of longevity and durability.

UncleEntity 4y ago

Why would I need a drug for that? I could probably just eat better (ie not one meal a day) and get “healthy”…not that I’m unhealthy now. Maybe, I prefer to live in denial. Three small meals a day and cut out the snacks and no drugs for me to take for the rest of my life.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago

> The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. Has this been proven in humans? The last review article I read mentioned that it was true for lab mice, but resulted in a suppressed immune response, which would result in early mortality for mice not living in a sterile (specific pathogen free; SPF) labitat.

leesec 4y ago
>Has this been proven in humans? Seems like it but it still might not be worth it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/12/acc-does-calorie-restriction-slow-aging/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/12/acc-does-calorie-restr...

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

This is false. You burn ~50 calories per hour doing nothing. You're saying that the only way to live longer is to lay down and do nothing and IV ~50 calories per hour into your body. You're not going to live very long like that. You're obviously not going to live very long if you simply never eat and starve to death.

jononomo 4y ago

Why not just follow a diet of only beef, eggs, and liver? This is the most nutrient dense diet you can follow and as a result you'll reduce your calorie intake while increasing your feelings of satiety. Also, you'll resolve a dozen major and minor health conditions.

Tumblewood 4y ago

The main point against it for me is not that it is a new drug; it is that, if I reduce my caloric intake, I won't have enough calories to maintain my normal daily activity levels.

runnerup 4y ago

The parent post said: > everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs But as a skinny person, I can already easily reduce caloric intake as much as I want to. My body is "blessed" with weak food cravings and solid blood glucose levels while fasting. So while I do recommend these drugs to people who need them, I don't think they'd help me at all more than merely deciding one day to monitor and control my weight to a very narrow target range. It's like the opposite of "its easy! Just eat less!" ... you guys are telling skinny people "Oh but eating at a maintenance/deficit will be too hard for you to do just by thinking you want to! You'll need a drug!" I can easily lose 20-40 lbs just by getting lazy and not cooking myself food. It's literally no challenge at all. But neither is gaining 20-40 lbs when I want to. I know this is relatively unique, I don't blame obese people for "lack of will". I know they have different biochemistry because it doesn't take me any willpower to gain or lose weight on demand. It's literally as effortless as deciding to wear more dressy clothes this year. I'm 6-foot tall and I can set and indefinitely maintain almost any weight I want between 145 and 200 lbs within +/- 3 lbs, with very little effort. Over 190 lbs gets a bit hard to maintain, under 155 also gets a bit hard to maintain. Supposedly "normal" BMI for my height goes all the way down to 136 lbs but I think that's probably total bullshit -- that's very, very, very skinny.

scarmig 4y ago
I'd be curious as to what the effects would actually be on you (though I agree that it seems at best useless and potentially harmful for you). Would your weight zone shift downwards, or would it do nothing?
at-w 4y ago
To be fair our ideas of normal are extremely skewed. If you look at photos from say 1962, you'd consider most people "skinny" (even photos of places like the US). Yet even then, 23% of American adults were obese according to the CDC. Even in 1987, the actor that played Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket gained 75lbs to play a comically obese Marine. Today he looks fitter than most people you'd see everyday. If you look at the US today, an average of just 1 in 4 people are not medically overweight or obese. What was considered (and is factually) obese, is now considered "chubby" or "curvy" if not normal by most Americans for whom that is normal.

BobbyJo 4y ago

> The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. The problem with this is how a continuous caloric deficit affects your quality of life. Your body tends to adapt by making you feel tired and killing your libido. Not to mention that being underweight becomes a health hazard past a certain age. IMO, if you aren't overweight, eating a healthy diet and enough calories to maintain your weight will give you the best combination of longevity and durability.