NYT a article today re Ozempic

(Robin) #1

The gist of the article was (surprise, surprise)… Taking Ozempic has had the result of reducing inflammation, arthritis etc etc.
Of course, WE know it’s the result of losing the weight, not taking the drug.
We get the same results naturally…
Eat healthy, lose weight, and reap the rewards.

(KM) #2

I’m curious about the reduction in inflammation, though. If I understand, Ozempic increases insulin production as well as insulin sensitivity, and decreases appetite. Which, taken together, results in weight loss. Which of these is the responsible party in reducing inflammation and arthritis? - observing someone who’s on the drug, Ozempic doesn’t necessarily improve diet, it just decreases the amount of crap being eaten.

(Joey) #3

Excellent observation. Suggests that the ill effects of carbohydrates are dose dependent. Lower the dosage, lower the inflammatory damage.

Separately, I’d read that something on the order of 2/3 to 3/4 of the weight loss from Ozempic was attributable to muscle mass loss. How accurate this figure is may be debatable, but losing muscle is never (ever) a good thing, is it?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #4

Did the author of the article include any way to identify the study?

I’m predicting that the study was low-powered and that the effect sizes were small, no matter how statistically significant they were. It would also be helpful to know if this was a manufacturer-sponsored study or independent.

(Bob M) #5

I’ve heard there was muscle loss. I wonder why? Is it an effect of the drug? Or an effect of the people who are taking the drug? In other words, the people who are taking the drug aren’t exercisers. And if you’re losing weight, you typically will lose some muscle mass. But the amounts were pretty shocking from what I’ve heard.

(Joey) #6

Agreed. Unless you’re strength training to (re)build muscle, reducing nutrition (limited appetite) will reduce resources available to keep a body going.

For an even more efficient reduction in both muscle and body fat that doesn’t involve dieting of any sort, one might consider limb removal. :roll_eyes:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #7

It is apparently a direct effect of the drug, because it reduces food consumption overall. (By virtue of promoting nausea and by slowing down peristalsis in the intestines.) To preserve lean mass while losing fat, one needs a low-insulin diet that still provides sufficient protein. In other words, keto.

If the people taking ozempic were to increase their protein, they might be able to preserve their lean mass, but the whole point of taking the drug instead of eating better is to be able to continue consuming carbohydrate. So lowering carbohydrate to be able to increase protein is not an option for such patients. So the muscle wasting (we are not talking here about the modest reduction in muscle from having less fat to haul around) is an inevitable consequence of the situation.

(Joey) #8

Without a doctor’s Rx, a cheaper approach would be to simply stick one’s finger down one’s throat throughout the day.

Which begs the question: How come when a pharmaceutical company markets a drug that produces an eating disorder they make $billions? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for them to get sued? :man_shrugging:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #9

Of course not! This is why we have “tort reform,” so that corporate profits (and hence executive bonuses) can’t be reduced by such “frivolous” health-related lawsuits.

Just use the product they sell you and stop whining, darn it! :scream:

#10

Dr Gabrielle Lyon has mentioned in a podcast that they sometimes use GLP-1 meds in her clinic, and those patients do not lose significant muscle mass. But that clinic has them eat sufficient protein and do strength training. When folks go on the medicine and just start eating less of what they were eating before without adequate protein and training, they can get in trouble with lean mass loss just as they can with other starvation-type diets.

(Bob M) #11

@Nutbar That was my thought/question too: what would happen if you took the drug AND ate protein and did body weight exercises/lifting? Of course, you’re unlikely to get this with most places you go.

(Joey) #12

If you ate protein in a sufficiently meaningful quantity to build muscle I imagine you’d throw up. (Only a slight exaggeration, based on anecdotal comments from a family friend - whose overweight wife is meandering down her lifelong Ozempic path.)

(Bob M) #13

That could be an issue. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

#14

That’s made up, people who keep their protein up don’t have that problem, that myth was busted very early on in the fitness community. Take a population that doesn’t get enough protein and is under muscled to begin with, then make them eat less, and nature takes it course. I’ve been taking Semaglutide for a long time now, I’m not losing a drop, and still adding, because my protein is coming in whether I’m enjoying it, or choking it down, but I’m getting it in either way.

#15

Yes and no, chronically high Insulin is inflammatory, that makes you insulin sensitive, so even with the diet not being corrected (which is stupid and it should be), you’d be dropping it from that angle right out of the gate.

(Joey) #16

It’s great to hear that you have had good results - likely attributable to your advanced knowledge and admirable self-discipline.

However, the downside of muscle loss is not mythical as it likely pertains to most patients out there in our SAD-eating, sedentary world.

Some of the “lean” mass (non-fat) that’s lost is actually part of the adipose tissue itself, so not necessarily a bad thing.

But muscle loss is another matter. Numerous clinical reports of muscle loss in patients have been reported by doctors who prescribe Ozempic in their field practice. It’s real.

#17

It’s real (in a sense), but not causal, don’t forget the mainstream doc’s just give you Ozemic, and just like any other thing they do, nutrition is never part of the equation. No different from the “studies” and “Science” that show that cholesterol was bad for us. If you eat SAD, the cholesterol actually is bad for you… except it wasn’t, it was all the refined crap and sugar doing it, but easier to blame the wrong thing rather than address the underlying problem.

If it were actual causal then getting in proper protein and keeping muscle mass on your body which everybody should work on regardless wouldn’t protect you from that, but it does.

(Alec) #18

Patience, my friend, that’s coming. But they’ve got to screw up a few million people first. But the lawsuits will come. Let’s hope they are big, they are serious, the victim’s win, and there is a LARGE payout to discourage this kind of nonsense in the future.

(Joey) #19

Sounds like we agree that, on Ozempic, one needs to pay extra careful attention to healthy eating and exercise.

Since most people don’t pay even minimally careful attention this is a big ask.

Ozempic simply raises the stakes.

(KM) #20

I’m pretty sure there’s already a lawsuit in progress over lack of warning about gastroparesis.