4 ms·
Did it? The drugs clearly lead to reduced appetite, therefore reduced calories. But do we know that the drugs aren’t also causing other important metabolic chan
by parpfish 2y ago
Did it? The drugs clearly lead to reduced appetite, therefore reduced calories. But do we know that the drugs aren’t also causing other important metabolic changes?
- nradov 2y agoThe drugs seem to cause a small increase in resting heart rate. Whether that is due to metabolic or neurologic changes (or something else) isn't completely clear.
- bitmasher9 2y agoWas it ever really a debate? There’s tons of experimental evidence that shows calorie reduction leads to weight loss, even without pharmaceuticals. The Ozempic data can be explained simply by this factor. There doesn’t seem to be enough data fluctuation between the two sets to indicate a significant set of unknown variables impacting the data.
- parpfish 2y agoyeah, but do ozempic et al only rely on calorie reduction? i find it hard to believe that hormones only affect one thing in isolation. it may be doing something like a) suppressing appetite to reduce caloric intake AND b) shielding against a lowered metabolism due to calorie restriction.
- tonymet 2y agoIf there is predominant evidence of significant calorie reduction leading to weight loss, and no evidence of the metabolic hypothesis , what should be our conclusion?
- gnkyfrg 2y ago[dead]
- spondylosaurus 2y agoIt's not even appetite per se; GLP-1s regulate blood sugar for more sustained levels, which is upstream of appetite. Safe to say that blood sugar impacts a bunch of other stuff too.
- tonymet 2y agoOccam's razor
- paulpauper 2y agoI think it confers some metabolic boost, but more data is needed