←back to thread

234 points Eumenes | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
polishdude20 ◴[] No.42199549[source]
It seems the article isn't just saying it's heart muscle that's being lost but regular muscle in general. Even more so than in a low calorie diet.
replies(2): >>42199559 #>>42199599 #
sfink ◴[] No.42199559[source]
There's a linked article saying that 40% of the weight loss is muscle.
replies(1): >>42199586 #
com2kid ◴[] No.42199586[source]
Outside of cardiac muscle, which is a bit worrisome, 40% of weight loss being from muscles is incredibly typical for any diet that sheds pounds.

There are very complex dietary regimes that can be followed to minimize this, but most studies have shown that they don't save any time compared to losing weight and then working to get the muscle back afterwards.

> Dyck’s study comes on the heels of a commentary published in the November issue of The Lancet by an international team of researchers from the U of A, McMaster and Louisiana State University who examined emerging research showing that up to 40 per cent of the weight lost by people using weight-loss drugs is actually muscle.

This is, again 100% typical of what happens with caloric restriction.

replies(2): >>42199706 #>>42199790 #
1. throwup238 ◴[] No.42199706{3}[source]
Literally the next line after the 40% quote:

> Carla Prado, a nutrition researcher in the Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences and lead author on the commentary, explains this rate of muscle decline is significantly higher than what is typically observed with calorie-reduced diets or normal aging and could lead to a host of long-term health issues — including decreased immunity, increased risk of infections and poor wound healing.

Do you have a source that 40% muscle loss is typical for a caloric restriction diet without GLP1 agonists?

replies(1): >>42201059 #
2. com2kid ◴[] No.42201059[source]
> Do you have a source that 40% muscle loss is typical for a caloric restriction diet without GLP1 agonists?

OK I actually checked up on this, and it is more like 30%, but that number gets worse as you get older. For young healthy men it can be 20%, but as you get older that number gets worse and worse.

I'd want to see a comparison of a similar cohort of people going on a calorie restricted diet of the same magnitude, with a similar (lack of) activity levels.

The study at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8... compares people who had less overall weight loss on a pure calorie restricting diet, which, well, by definition isn't the same thing.