Comment by parpfish

Comment by parpfish 2 months ago

8 replies

Did it? The drugs clearly lead to reduced appetite, therefore reduced calories. But do we know that the drugs aren’t also causing other important metabolic changes?

bitmasher9 2 months ago

Was it ever really a debate? There’s tons of experimental evidence that shows calorie reduction leads to weight loss, even without pharmaceuticals. The Ozempic data can be explained simply by this factor. There doesn’t seem to be enough data fluctuation between the two sets to indicate a significant set of unknown variables impacting the data.

  • parpfish 2 months ago

    yeah, but do ozempic et al only rely on calorie reduction? i find it hard to believe that hormones only affect one thing in isolation. it may be doing something like a) suppressing appetite to reduce caloric intake AND b) shielding against a lowered metabolism due to calorie restriction.

    • tonymet 2 months ago

      If there is predominant evidence of significant calorie reduction leading to weight loss, and no evidence of the metabolic hypothesis , what should be our conclusion?

spondylosaurus 2 months ago

It's not even appetite per se; GLP-1s regulate blood sugar for more sustained levels, which is upstream of appetite. Safe to say that blood sugar impacts a bunch of other stuff too.

nradov 2 months ago

The drugs seem to cause a small increase in resting heart rate. Whether that is due to metabolic or neurologic changes (or something else) isn't completely clear.

paulpauper 2 months ago

I think it confers some metabolic boost, but more data is needed