8 ms·
> Can we overcome ageing? 75% American are overweight.. Just let it sink a second, they speak about how many baby born after 2000 will reach 100 years old, ho
by aucisson_masque 2y ago
> Can we overcome ageing?
75% American are overweight..
Just let it sink a second, they speak about how many baby born after 2000 will reach 100 years old, how we are reaching the absolute limit of human survival.
75% overweight... Everyone know fat people don't live long. I bet all the studies done in the 90's that predicted we would easily be able to reach 100 years old didn't take that into account.
- scarby2 2y agoI'm thinking that ozempic and zepbound will have something to say about this. When ozempic becomes available as a generic (2032) it's going to be available for $10 a dose and a huge amount of people will be taking it.
- Muromec 2y agoWait, doing amphetamines for weight loss is cool again and has no drawbacks of it's own?
- llm_trw 2y agoWelcome to the 80s part 2. Hope you enjoy the ride.
- llamaimperative 2y agoOzempic et al are nothing like amphetamines. They definitely have side-effects but we have far, far more evidence that the benefits are outweighed than we did for stimulants in the 80s.
- llm_trw 2y agoEvery decade or two I hear this about some wonder drug only for them to turn out just as bad as what they were replacing. The opioid epidemic being the latest one.
- ywvcbk 2y agoDo you pay more attention to those and ignore the actual success stories? The opioids thing is hardly comparable. Everybody clearly knew the risks (for the past 100+ years) and chose to ignore them. This is an almost entirely new type of drugs.
- llm_trw 2y agoDo you pay attention to the people who win at Russian roulette more than those who lose? OxyContin was marketed to be the safe alternative to all opioids that came before it, impossible to become addicted to and extremely difficult to overdose from. This was a lie. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
- ywvcbk 2y ago> Do you pay attention to the people who win at Russian roulette more than those who lose? Well.. no since you cant really win anything. With pharmaceuticals on the other I hand I think 1 Oxycontin/etc. like “situation” would be a reasonable price to pay for let’s say 4 major successes. You were talking about decades. Surely you noticed the advancements in treating cancer, HIV and a multitude of other conditions since the 90s? > This was a lie. Sure. But it’s on the same level as saying that filtered cigarettes don’t cause cancer. If a doctor actually believes that he’s just too dumb to be a doctor… (although I assume most safety claims were relative to other opioids and not in absolute terms?) Are there any signs that the situation with Semaglutides is that similar? Yes they are new and not well understood drugs (well not really but sort of..) and it’s not inconceivable that their longterm cost might end up outweighing the benefits but I don’t really see any signs of an actual conspiracy yet.
- NemoNobody 2y agoI don't think ozempic is amphetamines.
- EasyMark 2y agoOzempic isn’t anywhere near the amphetamine class of weight control prescriptions, where are you getting your misinformation from?
- tuatoru 2y agoHonest puzzlement: how is it possible to be so underinformed when google, duckduckgo and wikipedia are right there? Are they blocked some places where hacker news isn't?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoYou live in a world where willful stupidity is far from rare. Yes, I know that we should assume incompetence before malevolence, but that was an earlier era. A mixture of the two is the new norm.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHow do you know they don’t have side effects that would reduce max life expectancy?
- generalizations 2y agoEntirely possible they do - but those effects would probably manifest in some fashion earlier than actual death. We'll have at least 7 years to see if we can spot them. But, even if they do exist, they will probably be small (given we haven't found them so far), and the positive effect on life expectancy via weight loss is huge. i.e. the benefits of the weight loss almost certainly outweigh any side effects that are likely to manifest.
- positr0n 2y agoPeople have been taking them for decades for other reasons, so if they had side effects reducing max life expectancy worse than being overweight surely we'd know by now.
- hackernewds 2y agohave they? why are they only gaining prominence now?
- ben_w 2y agoBecause they have been made available for weight loss. Viagra's original purpose was for heart conditions, that purpose didn't make the headlines (or spam folders) either.
- yodsanklai 2y agoI'm not quite sure this will address the root issues. Obesity is linked with very unhealthy diet. Ozempic isn't going to address that.
- aetherson 2y agoIt does at least potentially address that. Ozempic's mechanism of action is not "ramp up your metabolism" or "make you absorb fewer calories from food." It's "make the desire to eat less intense, making it easier to remain on a diet plan." That diet plan could be, "eat exactly the same things but less of them," but it will often be, "cut out unhealthy snacks" or whatever.
- gruez 2y ago>It's "make the desire to eat less intense, making it easier to remain on a diet plan." That diet plan could be, "eat exactly the same things but less of them," but it will often be, "cut out unhealthy snacks" or whatever. If people can't be convinced to eat carrots over chips, what makes you think they're going to suddenly eat carrots over chips after eating medication that makes them want to eat less?
- hoseja 2y agoBecause that's literally what Ozempic does.
- gruez 2y agoI'm not sure how making someone less hungry magically makes them want to eat carrots over chips. Is the reason why they're eating chips because they're so hungry and so pressed for time that they're reaching for the highest calorie food? Or do they eat whatever's the most delicious? If it's the latter, I doubt being less hungry is going to make them choose healthier options over more delicious ones.
- siver_john 2y ago
- Zenzero 2y agoThere is probably a distinction to be made between "here is the theoretical limit given adherence to modern recommendations on cardiovascular health, exercise, etc." and "you all didn't listen and got fat instead"
- Barrin92 2y ago> Everyone know fat people don't live long. studies estimate that moderate obesity takes about 2-3 years of life expectancy (defined as having a BMI of 30-35), only people with severe obesity (BMI of 40-45+) lose on average 6-13 years, comparable to smoking. Given that severe obesity is still uncommon even in the rich world it only has a small impact on life expectancy overall.
- bamboozled 2y agoCombined with getting in your car and driving absolutely everywhere (most Americans)?
- asdff 2y agoThis is what people also don't realize. When these sorts of people get old they become immobile as they lose what precious little of actual muscle mass they had and unsupported joints start failing left and right. Sure your life expectancy might only be 2-3 years shy. What about your health span? That's what most people are actually interested in extending when they talk about living longer.
- bamboozled 2y agoYeah, this is why I lift everyday and I plan too until I can no longer do it. Lifting is also good for mobility if done correctly. Especially deep squats. Hunched over old people do not have the muscle mass to help keep them upright, I guess amongst other things.
- lovethevoid 2y agoLifting does very little for mobility.
- andsoitis 2y ago> Lifting does very little for mobility. Weightlifting can improve mobility by: - strengthening muscles around joints allowing for more controlled movement. - increasing flexibility: Dynamic movements in weightlifting, like squats, lunges, and overhead presses, can stretch and strengthen muscles simultaneously, improving flexibility over time. - improving joint health because loading the joints with resistance can increase the production of synovial fluid, which helps lubricate joints and promote better movement. - promoting balance and coordination because exercises often challenge stability and coordination, which can help improve motor control and range of motion in everyday movements.
- EasyMark 2y agoThat’s a bizarre hill to die on, I see all kinds of larger people survive into their 90s when I was living near and volunteering at a nursing home as a teenager
- WillPostForFood 2y agoI see all kinds of larger people survive into their 90s So dangerous to extrapolate from anecdotal observation like this. If I see old people smoking, doesn't mean smoking is safe. It just means it doesn't kill at 100% effectiveness.
- koolba 2y ago> It just means it doesn't kill at 100% effectiveness. If you wait long enough, everything has a 100% effectiveness.
- rKarpinski 2y agoif you wait long enough, obesity actually becomes a protective factor for serious issues; like Falling & Sarcopenia.
- dyauspitr 2y agoI see “plenty” of life long smokers making it to their 80s and 90s too, that doesn’t mean it didn’t take out 90% of them along the way.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoGood example of how people overestimate the impact of these things. Closer to 10% of smokers get lung cancer.
- dyauspitr 2y agoBut COPD, Emphysema and cardio vascular issues also affect smokers, it’s not just lung cancer.
- throwaway2037 2y agoTo be clear, it looks like the health stat term "overweight" means anything greater than "normal", which includes obese. Quick Google search: > what percent of australians are overweight? First hit: > Over the last decade, the proportion of adults who were overweight or obese has increased from 62.8% in 2011–12 to 65.8% in 2022. Source: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/waist-circumference-and-bmi/latest-release#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20decade%2C%20the,31.7%25%20over%20the%20same%20period https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-a.... US NIH says: 73.1% are overweight (includes obese). Ref: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti... Sure, 73.1% > 65.8%, but Australia is still plenty overweight. Both are appalling.
- ywvcbk 2y agoTo be fair BMI is based on Belgians from the 1850s with all the implications it has. Modern people are much taller (+15 cm for males) and eat a lot more protein. So the line between normal and overweight is somewhat blurry. e.g. someone who is 6'3" and weighs 200 pounds is overweight. Which might or might not be the case (but you certainly don’t need to a body builder or invest a lot of time to maintain at least reasonably healthy 18-20% body fat ratio).
- gruez 2y ago>To be fair BMI is based on Belgians from the 1850s with all the implications it has. It's a pretty straightforward formula, and even though the cutoffs might be arbitrary, there's undoubtedly a u shaped mortality curve centered somewhere around 20-25. At a population level I don't think any of that is a relevant factor. No one thinks that your risk of death hinges on crossing an arbitrary line, but being fatter definitely isn't good for your health.
- lolinder 2y agoBut the question here is whether you can compare the BMI curves of two countries and come to any conclusions, and the answer is pretty solidly "no". Bone density, muscle mass, torso height relative to leg height—none of these things are factored into BMI and all of these vary wildly depending on genes.
- watwut 2y agoBeing slightly overweight is associated with longer lifespan. Really look it up, the longest lifespan is slightly overweight and top of normal bmi. Lifespan gets down when you move toward obese, somewhere in the middle of overweight segment. The worst life expectations are in underweight category.
- geysersam 2y agoHaha people really don't want to hear your message It's hard to take seriously the aversion especially Americans seem to have against overweight and obesity Funny the land of the free is so incredibly intolerant on this one point
- maximus-decimus 2y agoI remember a paper that said optimal weight to reduce mortality is just below overweight. slightly overweight people were living as long as "normal" weight people and being very low "healthy" weight really wasn't that great. I don't know what they based "normal" bmi weight on, but it's not by setting the middle of the range to max longevity.
- naveen99 2y agoYou should be suspicious of definitions where the average is abnormal. If 75% of people are over weight, maybe the definition of overweight is wrong. These definitions are arbitrary anyway. In india they define a bmi of 25 as obese. The same indian after moving to America is not obese until a bmi of 30. Meanwhile, the average height is also going up, which also correlates with lower life expectancy. Cardiologists already had to back off their blood pressure guidelines when they defined the average middle aged man as hypertensive in the past.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoWell, the average wasn't abnormal, and now it is, without the definition changing. That's telling us something. We're becoming fatter. That doesn't make being fatter "normal". It makes it average, but that's not the same thing. Historically, we know this is abnormal.
- naveen99 2y agoMaybe the past was underweight. Life expectancy is up compared to the past along with bmi. Also in Asia, average bmi is 23, and average bra size is B. In the usa, average bmi is 29, average bra size is DD. Probably same thing applies for men in relation to bench press and deadlift numbers.
- naveen99 2y agoBy the way, study after study has shown a u shaped life expectancy vs bmi, with peak life expectancy at bmi around 28. Higher BMI around 30 is even better if you have a chronic illness like heart disease, diabetes, lung disease, cancer etc. this is true even for Asian populations where average bmi is 22. “Normal” is actually worse for life expectancy, “overweight” is ideal, and obese and underweight are both bad. 1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10321632/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10321632/ 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11051237/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11051237/