4 ms·
It's strange how there is almost never a shortcut to anything. Like a universal law. So now you might get free weight loss without making any effort at all, bu
by bamboozled 2y ago
It's strange how there is almost never a shortcut to anything. Like a universal law.
So now you might get free weight loss without making any effort at all, but you'll also look older in the process?
I have to say, my father has been taking it, and I noticed that he does look older all of a sudden...and his weight loss also plateaued. I thought it was just my imagination, but maybe not.
- mym1990 2y agoI have heard that people who lose weight quickly will typically look older due to the development of wrinkles and the development of harder features. Skin simply doesn't have time to keep up with the weight loss. I don't know if this is true but the theory could have some merit as far as our perception of people. The real question is: does something like ozempic change the biological age of someone?
- swozey 2y agoYou're going to need to include a weight percentage drop or something. I've wrestled/jiujitsued my entire life and we go up and down weight constantly, 2-30lb swings. We'll water + electrolyte fast for a week or two if we have to and drop 10-20lbs. We all look 10-15 years younger than we are (35-45s). But we're also not dropping 150-200lbs or whatever number you're potentially referring to to where skin would stretch. But prolonged, constant rapid dropping hasn't bothered our skin. I'm complimented all the time on mine. https://old.reddit.com/r/wrestling/comments/2r9nwy/whats_the_most_weight_youve_lost_for_a_match/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wrestling/comments/2r9nwy/whats_the...
- mym1990 2y agoYeah totally, there would be umpteen different factors that would influence the "age perception" so to say. I also wonder how losing different types of weight(water fast vs longer timeframe fat/muscle loss) could impact this.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> strange how there is almost never a shortcut to anything. Like a universal law There are win-win tradeoffs. Vitamins, for instance. If you're running a vitamin deficiency, there isn't a downside to increasing your intake of that vitamin. (Curing acute dehydration via IV is another shortcut that just works.) The Ozempic story, for me, has been more about how we almost seem to be reflexively against the idea of a win-win. A lot of people want there to be a tragic downside to the drug for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me.
- xlbuttplug2 2y agoBut gluttony is a sin!
- mbrumlow 2y agoI thought everybody was saying Gluten was bad...
- ethbr1 2y agoFat soluable vitamin toxicity? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234920/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234920/ Because apparently a surprising number of people can't calculate bodyweight doses.
- silverquiet 2y agoMy perception is that we judge fat people as weak and contemptible and therefore a drug is allowing them to cheat their way out of their sin instead of paying the proper penance (diet and exercise). It's well known that people treat fat people worse; I constantly wonder how aware people are of their own biases? For what it's worth I've been fat before and I've been in shape before. I have my own biases that are beyond the scope of this comment. Never taken one of these drugs but only because of cost/access; I'm actually curious to experience them. If they work for people, I say they should take them.
- bamboozled 2y agoIt's not that it's a sin to be fat, it's that there are side effects to taking the short cut, as outlined in the article, which was the point I was trying to make originally.
- armchairhacker 2y agoWhat about people who are naturally thin?
- wiseowise 2y agoHarder to gain weight. Getting called skinny, etc.
- goodJobWalrus 2y agoI see older very skinny women who look old and frail due to being very skinny. You need some fat under that skin to plump it up to look youthful. Catherine Deneuve I believe was the one that said that after the age of 40 you have to chose between your face and your ass. I say all of this as a 40 something woman.
- bamboozled 2y agoNot fat, you need muscle mass, that's why some older people hunch over.
- digbybk 2y agoCoffee being the only exception.
- lagichikool 2y agoEven coffee is without its downsides and risks. There are cardiovascular risks, acid reflux, sleep issues, and probably more.
- Faaak 2y agoI though GERD was not caused by coffee [1]: "Drinking coffee or tea and adding milk or sugar was not associated with reflux symptoms or EE" [1]: https://journals.lww.com/tcmj/_layouts/15/oaks.journals/downloadpdf.aspx?an=00127828-201931030-00007 https://journals.lww.com/tcmj/_layouts/15/oaks.journals/down...
- lagichikool 2y agoCertainly is a problem for me and I've seen others say the same. Every doctor I've been to has mentioned it as an issue. "Caffeine — a major component of many varieties of coffee and tea — has been identified as a possible trigger for heartburn in some people. Caffeine may trigger GERD symptoms because it can relax the lower esophageal sphincter (LES)." https://www.healthline.com/health/gerd/coffee-tea https://www.healthline.com/health/gerd/coffee-tea
- carlmr 2y agoI get really bad GERD from coffee and black tea, a bit less from green tea. I don't get GERD from Mate tea or energy drinks. So I think it's not the caffeine. Since they both contain high amounts of caffeine, even higher than black tea. I've noticed that if I eat more fiber I can somewhat mitigate this. But it needs to be consistent. Not just a little extra fiber before coffee. BTW a high-fiber diet can be a natural ozempic by raising GLP-1 levels.
- maximus-decimus 2y ago
- rexer 2y agoI don’t know, I think that might be a bias of some kind. The free shortcuts are obvious and so the alternative sounds ridiculous. No one claims to be a genius when they save time by driving instead of walking. But at the margin, of course everything has a trade off.
- bananapub 2y agoseems pretty unsurprising to me that when you shift the equilibrium of some extremely complicated system that evolved over an extremely long time to improve some metric, that the side effects are mostly moving down some other metric you liked. or even more boringly: almost only bad things get called side effects rather than being redefined into the benefits
- cm2187 2y agoWhat kind of effort are you talking about? Weight loss has very little to do with exercise and mostly to do with how much you eat. Those drugs allow you to combat the carving when you restrict food. Is fighting the carving the "effort" you think people ought to make?
- anakaine 2y agoThis, and there's seems to be a number of people with a misconception that getting medical assistance is either cheating, or you're not trying hard enough. As someone who is quite strong and fit, but has a family history of obesity, and who has been packing on the kilos into their 40s - I've recently started with ozempic and it's a breakthrough drug. The incessant never ending demand to eat, that voice which never goes away and pervades every part of the day and task, the call which is almost impossible to ignore ore even after months of dieting and managing macros - it got moderated down from a 10/10 volume to about a 2/10 volume. I've started dropping the gut fat, and 6 weeks in my energy is coming back up to levels it was at 10 years ago. I'm hoping that this isnt a permanent solution, but that it permits me to reset my bodies relationship with food, insulin, fat accumulation and hunger signals in the long term as the signalling cells senesce, the fat is reduced and demands less maintenance, etc.
- Aperocky 2y ago> Weight loss has very little to do with exercise and mostly to do with how much you eat. That's not an accurate statement. Over the past year I have averaged 2 hours of aerobics per day (~1500 active CAL). And I've simply buffeted my way eating multiple portions per day and haven't gained any weight. It have a lot to do with a lot of exercises - it has little to do if you just had little exercise. It's all about the caloric balance, and it takes a lot of exercise to skew that balance while it's a lot easier to eat more.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwup238 2y agoIMO GLP-1 agonists are obviously not free, from first principles. They might be for diabetics who carefully manage their diet, but many (most?) people using them for weight loss usually already have shitty diets with poor macronutrient balance and micronutrient deficiencies. Eating less of the crappy food they were eating before just makes the true situation worse. This is just the latest [1][2] evidence for the obvious muscle wasting that will happen to a human body that is starved of protein and micronutrients. The muscles under the skin are being cannibalized for protein that’s missing in the diet and other biochemical processes that restore them are starved of the nutrients they need to function. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37558780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37558780 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39326333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39326333
- cameronh90 2y agoWhy do you think they just eat less of the same crappy food? In my experience, it turned down the reward feedback for calorie dense food, and I would usually now prefer something like a lentil daal over a Dominos.
- throwup238 2y agoBecause GLP-1 agonists don't change anything other than the cravings and/or reward feedback. They don't add healthy menu items to existing restaurants, they don't put new grocery stores in food deserts, teach people how to shop for healthy food or how to cook it so it's palatable, or in any way mitigate any of the socioeconomic factors that drive people to eating unhealthy food. In my experience, the average American is looking at restaurants like McDonalds, Dominoes/PizzaHut, a local burger joint, and a "fancy" place like Olive Garden. They wouldn't be able to get something healthy like lentil daal if they wanted to, with the closest equivalent being a McDonald's salad.
- taneq 2y agoThis is basically the ‘no free lunch’ principle, and the thing to keep in mind is that there’s no universal free lunch, but that doesn’t mean no individual lunch is ever free. (The classic example is insulin for diabetics, which most certainly is a win.)
- thefz 2y agoIt's worth noting that people, in this forum especially, would defend weight loss drugs at any cost. Because for them they mean being not-obese without any trace of effort. Controlling caloric input, maybe even leaving the house and moving... puff. Gone. Just take a pill daily for the rest of your life.