4 ms·

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 perso

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.
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      >muscle mass is required for their lifestyle The problem here is that the overwhelming majority of people that need GLP-1s have lifestyles that are not conducive to health and have less muscle mass than would be healthy to begin with. Which is what has me so confounded by this claims - these people already have less muscle than they should for optimal health. Losing any is a significant issue. And without lifestyle intervention, they're not going to regain any of that lost muscle. GLP-1 drugs are phenomenal and a huge win for health outcomes. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be telling people the truth about their downsides and what they need to do to counteract them.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Let’s ignore GLP-1, and assume an individual slowly dieted to that exact same weight. What’s going to happen over the following year(s) is their lifestyle causes identical muscle loss. In that context is this a long term downside of GLP-1 or their lifestyle? Treating lean muscle mass as an inherent good makes sense when it’s adapted to a person’s current lifestyle. It doesn’t make sense when it’s a temporary situation.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

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.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    >muscle mass is required for their lifestyle The problem here is that the overwhelming majority of people that need GLP-1s have lifestyles that are not conducive to health and have less muscle mass than would be healthy to begin with. Which is what has me so confounded by this claims - these people already have less muscle than they should for optimal health. Losing any is a significant issue. And without lifestyle intervention, they're not going to regain any of that lost muscle. GLP-1 drugs are phenomenal and a huge win for health outcomes. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be telling people the truth about their downsides and what they need to do to counteract them.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Let’s ignore GLP-1, and assume an individual slowly dieted to that exact same weight. What’s going to happen over the following year(s) is their lifestyle causes identical muscle loss. In that context is this a long term downside of GLP-1 or their lifestyle? Treating lean muscle mass as an inherent good makes sense when it’s adapted to a person’s current lifestyle. It doesn’t make sense when it’s a temporary situation.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]