7 ms·

> The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. I think you've misunderstood GP. He's not saying they have too much muscle when they'r

> The idea that an overweight person has "too much muscle" is nonsense. I think you've misunderstood GP. He's not saying they have too much muscle when they're overweight. He's saying that take that exact same amount of muscle, subtract a ton of fat from their upper bodies, then they have "too much muscle" as typically needed for their body mass. I don't agree with their phrasing, but the point isn't "nonsense."

mikenew 2y ago
I understand the point. Mine is that an ordinary untrained person will see health benefits and a statistically longer life from more muscle. An overweight person would have more muscle than their non-overweight counterparts (mostly localized to the legs, not upper body), and that is the one and only positive of being overweight. Willfully throwing that away will harm your health, full stop. The muscle loss problem with these drugs is talked about a lot because it is in fact a problem. Not because the medical field is mistaken in thinking it's a bad thing.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Your complaint doesn't make sense to me. The negative health impact of being obese isn't equalized by having a little more muscle mass. Also, if this is your stance, then GLP-1 is a red herring because you have the same issue with weight loss in general. Weight loss, without increasing resistance training, leads to muscle loss.
- Retric 2y ago
  There’s negative cardiovascular effects from excess muscle just as with excess fat. Normally that’s offset by the health effects of the exercise required to gain and maintain them as well as the lack of medical conditions that prevent exercise etc. But a fat person losing weight should inherently lose muscle mass long term assuming no changes to lifestyle.
  - obvi8 2y ago
    I was looking for this comment! Not a doctor, but as I understand it muscle is roughly equivalent to fat as far as your heart’s workload is concerned. I thought I also read that muscle movement helps with blood return.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      Muscle movement is also necessary for the limbic system to function.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Limbic system is unrelated to muscle movement. Movement is required for the lymphatic system to function, excess muscle volume doesn’t help.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    This is one of those statements that is technically true but not particularly relevant. Obese people are almost never at a level of lean body mass that they would overall be at a good amount of muscle even for a healthy total weight, and rapid weight loss has consistently been shown in studies to reduce more lean body mass than slower weight loss. Getting to the same level of additional weight from muscles as there is from fat is also incredibly difficult. The average 5'8 person not utilizing AAS would take years of dedicated training, dialed in diet and recovery, etc., to get to 200lb at 15% bodyfat. People get there much faster and much easier putting on fat.
    - Retric 2y ago
      What’s relevant is subjective. I’ll agree it’s far from as important as obesity, but the point is some of this adaptation is good. As to loss of muscle mass from rapid weight loss, that’s very true but slightly overstated as regaining muscle can occur ~10x as fast as it takes to grow it in the first place. Someone without a significant calorie deficit barring nutritional deficiency or other impediment will regain whatever muscle mass is required for their lifestyle quite quickly. However, people don’t train with weighted vests as among other things it targets the wrong muscle groups.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
n4r9 2y ago
> then they have "too much muscle" as typically needed for their body mass It's a leap to suggest that it's "good" to lose this muscle mass. If you're obese then it's good to lose fat. It's even better to do so while maintaining muscle mass.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Yeah, but whether you do resistance training while losing weight so that you have proportionally extra muscle mass than you had when you were overweight has nothing to do with the GLP-1 drug. Every time GLP-1 drugs come up, the convo splinters off into topics that have nothing to do with anything unique to the drug. Now we're just talking about general weight loss and that it's good to exercise. Which is a trivial claim.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Yeah that's obviously better. They really meant it's "not bad" rather than "good". When people read "muscle loss" they think "oh it's going to make me weak and feeble".
  - stavros 2y ago
    Well, no, but I like how muscular I look (even with the extra weight). I wouldn't want to look skinny and lose the weight lifting gains.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    The problem is it is bad. People aren't just losing a proportional amount of muscle to fat mass to keep a good ratio - rapid weight loss is more catabolic towards lean body mass than it is with slower weight loss. And most obese people are below optimal levels of total lean body mass overall even before this - their leg muscles being larger than an untrained person of the same height and an average weight does not mean that their leg muscles are of optimal size, much less the rest of their body. Sarcopenia is a real risk for any obese person who is rapidly losing weight and GLP-1s are no exception.

mikenew 2y ago

I understand the point. Mine is that an ordinary untrained person will see health benefits and a statistically longer life from more muscle. An overweight person would have more muscle than their non-overweight counterparts (mostly localized to the legs, not upper body), and that is the one and only positive of being overweight. Willfully throwing that away will harm your health, full stop. The muscle loss problem with these drugs is talked about a lot because it is in fact a problem. Not because the medical field is mistaken in thinking it's a bad thing.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
Your complaint doesn't make sense to me. The negative health impact of being obese isn't equalized by having a little more muscle mass. Also, if this is your stance, then GLP-1 is a red herring because you have the same issue with weight loss in general. Weight loss, without increasing resistance training, leads to muscle loss.
Retric 2y ago
There’s negative cardiovascular effects from excess muscle just as with excess fat. Normally that’s offset by the health effects of the exercise required to gain and maintain them as well as the lack of medical conditions that prevent exercise etc. But a fat person losing weight should inherently lose muscle mass long term assuming no changes to lifestyle.
- obvi8 2y ago
  I was looking for this comment! Not a doctor, but as I understand it muscle is roughly equivalent to fat as far as your heart’s workload is concerned. I thought I also read that muscle movement helps with blood return.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Muscle movement is also necessary for the limbic system to function.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Limbic system is unrelated to muscle movement. Movement is required for the lymphatic system to function, excess muscle volume doesn’t help.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  This is one of those statements that is technically true but not particularly relevant. Obese people are almost never at a level of lean body mass that they would overall be at a good amount of muscle even for a healthy total weight, and rapid weight loss has consistently been shown in studies to reduce more lean body mass than slower weight loss. Getting to the same level of additional weight from muscles as there is from fat is also incredibly difficult. The average 5'8 person not utilizing AAS would take years of dedicated training, dialed in diet and recovery, etc., to get to 200lb at 15% bodyfat. People get there much faster and much easier putting on fat.
  - Retric 2y ago
    What’s relevant is subjective. I’ll agree it’s far from as important as obesity, but the point is some of this adaptation is good. As to loss of muscle mass from rapid weight loss, that’s very true but slightly overstated as regaining muscle can occur ~10x as fast as it takes to grow it in the first place. Someone without a significant calorie deficit barring nutritional deficiency or other impediment will regain whatever muscle mass is required for their lifestyle quite quickly. However, people don’t train with weighted vests as among other things it targets the wrong muscle groups.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

n4r9 2y ago

> then they have "too much muscle" as typically needed for their body mass It's a leap to suggest that it's "good" to lose this muscle mass. If you're obese then it's good to lose fat. It's even better to do so while maintaining muscle mass.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
Yeah, but whether you do resistance training while losing weight so that you have proportionally extra muscle mass than you had when you were overweight has nothing to do with the GLP-1 drug. Every time GLP-1 drugs come up, the convo splinters off into topics that have nothing to do with anything unique to the drug. Now we're just talking about general weight loss and that it's good to exercise. Which is a trivial claim.
IshKebab 2y ago
Yeah that's obviously better. They really meant it's "not bad" rather than "good". When people read "muscle loss" they think "oh it's going to make me weak and feeble".
- stavros 2y ago
  Well, no, but I like how muscular I look (even with the extra weight). I wouldn't want to look skinny and lose the weight lifting gains.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  The problem is it is bad. People aren't just losing a proportional amount of muscle to fat mass to keep a good ratio - rapid weight loss is more catabolic towards lean body mass than it is with slower weight loss. And most obese people are below optimal levels of total lean body mass overall even before this - their leg muscles being larger than an untrained person of the same height and an average weight does not mean that their leg muscles are of optimal size, much less the rest of their body. Sarcopenia is a real risk for any obese person who is rapidly losing weight and GLP-1s are no exception.