←back to thread

234 points Eumenes | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
cm2187 ◴[] No.42199591[source]
> emerging research showing that up to 40 per cent of the weight lost by people using weight-loss drugs is actually muscle

That's the sort of headlines that smells like bullshit to me.

My understand of those drugs is that they don't actually make you lose weight, they just cut your appetite so you can follow a diet to lose weight without hunger hammering at the door. So to start with, if that's the case, all they are observing is the effect of a diet. Not sure the diet drug has much to do with it.

Then I went from 133kg to 88kg with these diet drugs. Even though I exercised every day, I am sure I also lost some muscle mass as well, just because I don't have to carry 45kg every time I make a move anymore. Seems logical and would probably be concerned if it was any other way.

replies(10): >>42199621 #>>42199630 #>>42199644 #>>42199659 #>>42199679 #>>42199705 #>>42199766 #>>42199811 #>>42199873 #>>42200454 #
throwup238 ◴[] No.42199679[source]
The next line of the article after that 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.

The rather obvious problem is that these GLP1 agonists don't improve your diet. If you continue to eat a protein and nutrient deficient diet (which is probably a majority of Americans) with caloric restriction on top of that, that leads to excessive muscle loss that you wouldn't see in a weight loss diet. This normally doesn't happen without GLP1 agonists, because these diets are too difficult to stick to for most people. Those who stick to them usually turn to nutritious high satiety whole foods that help combat the negative effects of caloric restriction.

Losing weight without losing muscle mass is very hard. It requires extreme diets like a protein sparring modified fast where 80%+ of your calories are from lean protein while running a 50% caloric deficit. If this research is correct, then using GLP1 agonists shortcuts the feedback loops that make the diets hard to stick to, but they shift the tradeoffs from weight to overall nutrition.

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" and all that.

replies(15): >>42199722 #>>42199731 #>>42199740 #>>42199771 #>>42199850 #>>42199871 #>>42199930 #>>42199994 #>>42200026 #>>42200032 #>>42200077 #>>42200080 #>>42200105 #>>42200224 #>>42200525 #
zemvpferreira ◴[] No.42199771[source]
>Losing weight without losing muscle mass is very hard.

I was with you up to here. In my experience it's easy to maintain a huge proportion of your lean tissue during a weight loss diet: Do some resistance training, get some protein, and don't lose weight too quickly.

There's no need to go to the extreme of a PSMF - which will still have you lose a bunch of muscle on account of being too big a deficit. If you can keep your calories reasonable while on a GLP1 agonist, there doesn't seem to be any reason you'll lose an exaggerated amount of muscle.

replies(6): >>42199824 #>>42199831 #>>42199894 #>>42199923 #>>42199999 #>>42201074 #
1. Kirby64 ◴[] No.42199831[source]
For the average overweight person? I disagree. The average obese person does little to no resistance training, eats very little protein, and wants to lose weight fast so they're not paying for expensive GLP1 drugs for a long period of time.

You're asking folks to make three separate changes: start exercising, change their diet to add protein, and use GLP1s to reduce food amount. And reducing food amount already goes against adding protein, so whatever protein they were getting is going to get cut even further.

replies(3): >>42199904 #>>42199929 #>>42201113 #
2. astrange ◴[] No.42199904[source]
Increasing exercise also goes against reducing food amount, because it makes you hungrier.
3. XorNot ◴[] No.42199929[source]
I mean when I needed to lose weight (15kg, 85kg -> 70kg) I started with calorie restriction, and as a result of that actually looked at what I was eating and realized I was incredibly low on protein, and then from that added some daily light exercise partly just to avoid getting bored and wanting food.

So this isn't really 3 separate unrelated changes. Also at least in my experience, people tend to regard high protein things as the "energy dense" part of a meal - the problem with a lot of carbohydrates is they're not very filling.

The biggest problem with exercise is it's an awful way to lose weight - you don't burn that many calories, it makes you hungrier, and then your body optimizes to burn even less calories as you do it.

4. cthalupa ◴[] No.42201113[source]
I'm someone that used to be fit and lifted regularly. Got busy, got lazy, got fat. Tried multiple times to get not-fat after getting fat, and found it to be too difficult for me, despite it not being something I struggled with for many years earlier on in adulthood.

Getting on tirzepatide made it trivially easy for me to get back to a better diet, start exercising, etc. I do have to force myself to have an extra protein shake to hit my macros, though.