Would not trade Ozempic For Anything

Retroguy2000

paperpudding wrote: »

well, actually, No that isnt why

it exists primarily for type 2 diabetics who need extra medication to control their BSL's

Fair point.

chris_in_cal

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

It's right there in the articles, which cite a study which was linked, and it's all explained to you.

But it's not.

In the article https://nbcnews.com/health/health-news/weight-loss-drugs-muscle-loss-rcna84936 it actually has the drug shills saying the opposite: "Although lean body mass, which includes muscle mass, decreased in absolute terms, the proportion of lean body mass relative to total body mass increased,” --and-- “a reduction in lean mass was reported at a similar rate as what is seen in lifestyle-based treatments for obesity,”

Again you and they are not really citing anything.

The other article is a hot mess and the only thing remotely close is Nadolsky's opinion "which is on the high end of what we’d expect,”

Does taking the drug lead to faster weight loss than not taking it? Yes.

Source? It's CICO. I'm unaware of any speeding up.

Does losing weight quickly lead to more muscle mass lost? Yes, this is old news.

Do people relying on a magic injection to solve their weight problem typically also take great effort to change their lifestyle by adding protein and weight lifting to mitigate these effects? I'm guessing no, and anecdotal posts from around this forum support that guess.

So common sense says yes, more muscle mass lost while on the drugs. Again, you can easily find this information yourself.

This is all 100% genuinely your honest opinion. That's cool, I respect that it's your belief. I am with you on this...you own it, it's yours. No problems here.

Retroguy2000

chris_in_cal wrote: »

The other article is a hot mess and the only thing remotely close is Nadolsky's opinion "which is on the high end of what we’d expect,”

Doctor Nadolsky, yes. And you can find other sources, but of course you made no effort to do so, as I expected.

chris_in_cal wrote: »

Source? It's CICO. I'm unaware of any speeding up.

Wait, now you think that people on the drugs don't lose weight faster than people who aren't? Are you serious?

But also, it was in the article linked there, which for some reason you ignored.

"The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was −15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with −2.6 kg in the placebo group"

Can we agree that 15 is much more than 2?

I have to ask now, do you have a financial motivation for your continued staunch defense of the drugs, and the way you attack with bad faith arguments anything that could be considered a negative for them? Are you involved with one of the companies which sells these drugs, in any way?

chris_in_cal

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was −15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with −2.6 kg in the placebo group

You quoted the NEJM article "Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity." https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183 By Dr. John Wilding

The study you quoted actual was paid for by the drug manufacturer, BTW.

Here is the conclusion of the study you cited:

CONCLUSIONS - In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight.

So, in sum, it say people who took Semaglutide lost weight and those who did not take Semaglutida did not lose weight.

Losing excess weight, as you pointed out earlier, means losing lean tissue too. Those who did not take the drug, and did not lose weight, did not lose any additional lean tissue.

The linked articles were click bait. This study you quoted is much more interesting. But as it is just one study, I'm not betting my life on it (especially since the study you quoted was paid for by the drug manufacturer.)