←back to thread

372 points Eumenes | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
tomhoward ◴[] No.42201055[source]
I'm not commenting specifically on the heart-muscle aspect of the study, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the weight loss from this drug is significantly attributable to muscle loss; it almost always is when dieting. It's the same with keto/low-carb or any other kind of caloric-restrictive dieting (which Ozempic facilitates).

The modern weight-loss programs I'm seeing now (at least those aimed mostly at middle-aged men) emphasize consuming significant amounts of protein (2g for every 1kg of body weight each day) and engaging in regular resistance training, in order to maintain muscle mass.

The article addresses this:

To keep muscle strong while losing weight, Prado says it is essential to focus on two main things: nutrition and exercise. Proper nutrition means getting enough high-quality protein, essential vitamins and minerals, and other “muscle-building” nutrients. Sometimes, this can include protein supplements to make sure the body has what it needs.

Perhaps there needs to be more formal research into this, and a strong recommendation made to everyone using these drugs that this kind of diet and exercise plan is vital.

replies(9): >>42201286 #>>42202417 #>>42202513 #>>42202701 #>>42202761 #>>42203217 #>>42203351 #>>42206829 #>>42207334 #
ANewFormation ◴[] No.42203217[source]
The percents are very different. For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting, unless you're a Greek Grizzly, but the total muscle loss is relatively negligible, especially when maintaining a proper high protein diet.

At 40% muscle loss you're getting awful close to losing weight while increasing your body fat percent!

But of course you're right that diet+exercise is key but for those maintaining such, they wouldn't end up on these drugs to start with.

replies(1): >>42205751 #
snozolli ◴[] No.42205751[source]
For example in bodybuilding one normally 'bulks' while working out, because it maximizes muscle gain. But then naturally this needs to be paired with cutting

This comes from professional bodybuilding, where people are using steroids, along with various, uh, interesting chemicals on the cut[1]. It has almost no benefit to (real) natural bodybuilders. It's closely tied to cycles of steroids.

[1] Ephedrine, Albuterol, Clenbuterol (literally only approved for horses in the US), DNP, and probably more that I haven't heard of. Here's an NIH article on the dangers of DNP, to put it in perspective: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3550200/

replies(4): >>42205808 #>>42205831 #>>42207085 #>>42207534 #
cthalupa ◴[] No.42207534[source]
Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles.

Outside of noob gains it is incredibly difficult for a natural to add muscle mass when in a calorie deficit and recomposition at maintenance calories is also inefficient in the vast majority of cases.

They won't bulk the same way someone on gear does, but it's still the most efficient way to add muscle mass in the vast majority of cases.

replies(1): >>42210584 #
snozolli ◴[] No.42210584[source]
Natural bodybuilders 100% go through bulking and cutting cycles

No, they don't. They simply eat enough to continue muscle growth and attempt to shed fat before a competition. Any non-competitor doing this is just engaging in quasi-religious nonsense or rationalizing a bad diet.

Bulking and cutting have meaning, and we're not going to turn it into any caloric surplus vs deficit.

replies(2): >>42211289 #>>42214050 #
nightowl_games ◴[] No.42214050[source]
Jeff Nippard is a YouTuber, natural body building pro and record holder, and he takes about his bulk/cut cycle a lot. I don't know how you can so confidently say "No they don't" when it's literally impossible for you to make such a blanket statement.
replies(1): >>42216784 #
brailsafe ◴[] No.42216784[source]
I don't even have a dog in this fight, but if someone cited a YouTuber—particularly as their first qualifying attribute—as an authoritative source, I'd just laugh.

While some YouTubers may be correct about the things they talk about, or may even be doctors or researchers, I think we're in a pretty sus world if disputes about factual or even anecdotal information can come down to whether someone's watching and getting recommended the same content on a video site designed to exploit chronic viewing habits.

If your crowd does differently, just cite that, if they don't, speak from a place of speculation if that's what you'd like like them to do, because that's basically what watching YouTube does for a person.

replies(2): >>42219306 #>>42222070 #
1. nightowl_games ◴[] No.42222070[source]
You're right. You dont have a dog in this fight.
replies(1): >>42238880 #
2. brailsafe ◴[] No.42238880[source]
Thank you for your contribution