7 ms·

Gonna be fun discovering what side effects it causes in 20 years tho.

by voidfunc 2y ago

abra0 2y ago
The real question is whether these side-effects are going to be worse than 20 years of not taking it.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  This is the question and for people that are older the scales steadily tip towards just taking the damn drug because in 20 years they're likely to be dead anyways.
mbostleman 2y ago
Exactly. I see all these breathless claims of new uses and how wonderful this drug is and wonder when the other shoe is going to drop.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  I’ll make my usual response: we know that being obese is basically the worst possible thing you can do to yourself, and the longer you are, the worse it is. The side effects are going to be pretty awful just to negate that, much less all the other things they seem to be good for.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    >> being obese is basically the worst possible thing you can do to yourself Lol. I can think of dozens of worse things. Drinking. Cocaine addiction. Meth. Winding up in prison for some reason. Riding a motorcycle without a proper helmet. Getting into a plane flown by Harrison Ford. Even simple unprotected sex can lead to massive medical problems. Ever looked up the average life expectancy of professional athletes, especially the NFL? It isn't great.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      > Drinking Being obese is probably worse for you. NAFLD has long eclipsed alcohol related liver issues. > Even simple unprotected sex can lead to massive medical problems Even treated HIV is probably less of a risk to your long term health than obesity, but I'm not a doctor. > Cocaine addiction. Meth OK, yes, there are illegal drugs that are going to be worse for you than being fat. I'll rephrase: Being obese is basically the worst possible thing you can do to yourself that affects a huge portion of the population of the western world. Very very few people are riding motorcycles without a helmet, even fewer are getting into planes flown by harrison ford, only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the population even has the option of being a professional athlete.
      - amenhotep 2y ago
        I like how the implicit sorting at the end here suggests Harrison Ford is ferrying around more people than there are professional athletes. Busy fella!
    - astrange 2y ago
      > Drinking. Cocaine addiction. Meth. Ozempic treats all of those too.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > drinking GLP-1 solves this too > Cocaine addiction GLP-1 solves this > Meth GLP-1 solves this > Prison ... no helmet Okay, GLP-1 don't solve these but these aren't medical issues. This is just danger > Even simple unprotected sex can lead to massive medical problems Mmm... not really. People overblow this. Pretty much all STIs are completely harmless to your health if treated. One shot of penicillin and you're good to go. Your average flu is probably much worse than syphilis or chlamydia. HIV is the "biggest" risk, but HIV doesn't even impact your lifespan anymore.
- Zelphyr 2y ago
  You're getting downvoted here but I think there is precedent behind your statement. History is littered with weight loss drugs that had to be pulled because the shoe eventually dropped. Usually that was addiction or death which, admittedly, neither have been shown in the GLP-1's but, given the history of weight loss drugs, it's not unreasonable in my opinion to be cautious.
  - astrange 2y ago
    GLP-1s are completely different from all those drugs. There's no reason to use them as evidence for it.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    I'm not a chemist, biologist, or pharmacologist, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to be cautious based on how analogous the method of action is to other drugs, rather than the effect? GLP-1s don't work in the same manner that phen/fen did, for example. DNP is an extremely effective drug for weight loss, but no one who knows anything about how it works would think that it would be reasonable to compare it to the GLP-1s, and anyone who knows how it works would also plainly see the dangers around its use. GLP-1 type drugs have been on the market for decades now as well, and while they are not perfectly safe, we've got a good amount of data around the short to medium term side effects.
- aantix 2y ago
  You're getting downvoted because you didn't even care to do a simple Google search as to when the first GLP-1 was released. 2005. Almost 20 years. We have the data.
  - mbostleman 2y ago
    Actually I recently listened to a fascinating hour long interview with Lotte Bjerre Knudsen (ACQ2 podcast) from which I learned that the original research started in the early 90s. I'm not an authority but I'm pretty well aware of the history. However, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop if you don't mind. And I don't care about votes up or down. But I appreciate your theory on how they're playing out!
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      Is there a law of nature that says a chemical compound has to have a side effects of medical concern for a significant portion of people that ingest it? One of the most commonly consumed drugs on the planet seems to indicate there is no such thing - caffeine in reasonable quantities is tolerated by the overwhelming majority of human beings and research indicates that even outside of the stimulant effects that humans use it for, it is beneficial. We have significant evidence that caffeine in the 100-400mg per day range decreases risk of heart disease and stroke, and smaller but still compelling evidence that it is protective against diabetes. Irregular use does seem to cause a small increase in heart rate and blood pressure, but this fades in the overwhelming majority of users as they make the usage more regular. Too much can cause adverse outcomes, such as anxiety, and in some people timing might be important for maintaining sleep quality, but the vast majority of us would see positive impact from consuming a cup or two of coffee in the morning with little to no concern around side effects.
      - mbostleman 2y ago
        Absolutely, I'm sure there's all kinds of drugs that are totally safe. And I have no reason to think that this one isn't. But it does seem to follow a classic pattern - people get unhealthy because modern life and technology have removed them, in a period of decades, from the environment, incentives, and activities that have shaped their bodies for millennia. And rather than looking at the simpler solutions - in this case just being more active and eating better - some new technological solution is created to fix the problem that the earlier technologies accidentally created. Then the cycle continues and other non-intended consequences ensue. So that's all I'm saying - it's interesting to watch humanity progress. Hope it works out for everyone and it's a smashing success!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Someone1234 2y ago
It will likely save so many lives, it may still make sense to take it with those risks.
encoderer 2y ago
You might be right, but it has been in testing/development for 20 years now.
spondylosaurus 2y ago
Liraglutide, the predecessor to semaglutide, has been on the market for 15 years :)
candiddevmike 2y ago
Seems like you need to increase the usage of it as your body starts adapting to it and the weight loss plateaus. IMO, I think the hype around this drug is a bit much and I expect a significant number of users won't be able to meet or maintain their weight loss goals with it.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  I do think the dosing schedule should receive more personalization per-person. The schedule for tirzepatide is 2.5mg a week for the first month, then 5mg, then 7.5, etc. For me, a month in on 2.5, I was still struggling to force myself to eat enough. Zero need to move up. Some people don't feel anything at all until they're on 7.5mg, though. There's also a lot of people seeing better success with smaller doses more frequently, too. Instead of moving up to 5mg, I'm doing 2mg every 3-4 days. Loss is still steady and I'm not seeing any indication I'll need to bump up any time soon.
keeganpoppen 2y ago
it'd have to be pretty bad to outpace mortality for being obese
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
- Significantly increased mortality risk - Higher rates of cardiovascular disease - Type 2 diabetes - Sleep apnea and breathing problems - Osteoarthritis due to excess pressure on joints - Multiple types of cancers (colon, breast, endometrial) - Depression and anxiety from social stigma - Reduced mobility and quality of life - Higher medical costs (~$1,429 more annually per person)[1] - Decreased workplace productivity - Shorter life expectancy (can reduce by 5-10 years) Oh no wait, sorry, those are the effects of obesity. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635784/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635784/
- consteval 2y ago
  Right, this is what people aren't understanding. We already know the side-effects of the alternative because Western society as a whole has been living them. It's bad. The obesity epidemic causes pretty much everything bad. This drug doesn't just solve one thing, it solves hundreds or thousands of things all at once.
aantix 2y ago
Take a look at exenatide, a GLP-1 that was FDA-approved in 2005. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-exenatide-lower-or-extend-I3aNf6YCRua0ZvXEK2itgA https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-exenatide-lower-or-ext...

Gonna be fun discovering what side effects it causes in 20 years tho.

abra0 2y ago

The real question is whether these side-effects are going to be worse than 20 years of not taking it.

AlexandrB 2y ago
This is the question and for people that are older the scales steadily tip towards just taking the damn drug because in 20 years they're likely to be dead anyways.

mbostleman 2y ago

Exactly. I see all these breathless claims of new uses and how wonderful this drug is and wonder when the other shoe is going to drop.

cthalupa 2y ago
I’ll make my usual response: we know that being obese is basically the worst possible thing you can do to yourself, and the longer you are, the worse it is. The side effects are going to be pretty awful just to negate that, much less all the other things they seem to be good for.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> being obese is basically the worst possible thing you can do to yourself Lol. I can think of dozens of worse things. Drinking. Cocaine addiction. Meth. Winding up in prison for some reason. Riding a motorcycle without a proper helmet. Getting into a plane flown by Harrison Ford. Even simple unprotected sex can lead to massive medical problems. Ever looked up the average life expectancy of professional athletes, especially the NFL? It isn't great.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    > Drinking Being obese is probably worse for you. NAFLD has long eclipsed alcohol related liver issues. > Even simple unprotected sex can lead to massive medical problems Even treated HIV is probably less of a risk to your long term health than obesity, but I'm not a doctor. > Cocaine addiction. Meth OK, yes, there are illegal drugs that are going to be worse for you than being fat. I'll rephrase: Being obese is basically the worst possible thing you can do to yourself that affects a huge portion of the population of the western world. Very very few people are riding motorcycles without a helmet, even fewer are getting into planes flown by harrison ford, only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the population even has the option of being a professional athlete.
    - amenhotep 2y ago
      I like how the implicit sorting at the end here suggests Harrison Ford is ferrying around more people than there are professional athletes. Busy fella!
  - astrange 2y ago
    > Drinking. Cocaine addiction. Meth. Ozempic treats all of those too.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > drinking GLP-1 solves this too > Cocaine addiction GLP-1 solves this > Meth GLP-1 solves this > Prison ... no helmet Okay, GLP-1 don't solve these but these aren't medical issues. This is just danger > Even simple unprotected sex can lead to massive medical problems Mmm... not really. People overblow this. Pretty much all STIs are completely harmless to your health if treated. One shot of penicillin and you're good to go. Your average flu is probably much worse than syphilis or chlamydia. HIV is the "biggest" risk, but HIV doesn't even impact your lifespan anymore.
Zelphyr 2y ago
You're getting downvoted here but I think there is precedent behind your statement. History is littered with weight loss drugs that had to be pulled because the shoe eventually dropped. Usually that was addiction or death which, admittedly, neither have been shown in the GLP-1's but, given the history of weight loss drugs, it's not unreasonable in my opinion to be cautious.
- astrange 2y ago
  GLP-1s are completely different from all those drugs. There's no reason to use them as evidence for it.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  I'm not a chemist, biologist, or pharmacologist, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to be cautious based on how analogous the method of action is to other drugs, rather than the effect? GLP-1s don't work in the same manner that phen/fen did, for example. DNP is an extremely effective drug for weight loss, but no one who knows anything about how it works would think that it would be reasonable to compare it to the GLP-1s, and anyone who knows how it works would also plainly see the dangers around its use. GLP-1 type drugs have been on the market for decades now as well, and while they are not perfectly safe, we've got a good amount of data around the short to medium term side effects.
aantix 2y ago
You're getting downvoted because you didn't even care to do a simple Google search as to when the first GLP-1 was released. 2005. Almost 20 years. We have the data.
- mbostleman 2y ago
  Actually I recently listened to a fascinating hour long interview with Lotte Bjerre Knudsen (ACQ2 podcast) from which I learned that the original research started in the early 90s. I'm not an authority but I'm pretty well aware of the history. However, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop if you don't mind. And I don't care about votes up or down. But I appreciate your theory on how they're playing out!
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    Is there a law of nature that says a chemical compound has to have a side effects of medical concern for a significant portion of people that ingest it? One of the most commonly consumed drugs on the planet seems to indicate there is no such thing - caffeine in reasonable quantities is tolerated by the overwhelming majority of human beings and research indicates that even outside of the stimulant effects that humans use it for, it is beneficial. We have significant evidence that caffeine in the 100-400mg per day range decreases risk of heart disease and stroke, and smaller but still compelling evidence that it is protective against diabetes. Irregular use does seem to cause a small increase in heart rate and blood pressure, but this fades in the overwhelming majority of users as they make the usage more regular. Too much can cause adverse outcomes, such as anxiety, and in some people timing might be important for maintaining sleep quality, but the vast majority of us would see positive impact from consuming a cup or two of coffee in the morning with little to no concern around side effects.
    - mbostleman 2y ago
      Absolutely, I'm sure there's all kinds of drugs that are totally safe. And I have no reason to think that this one isn't. But it does seem to follow a classic pattern - people get unhealthy because modern life and technology have removed them, in a period of decades, from the environment, incentives, and activities that have shaped their bodies for millennia. And rather than looking at the simpler solutions - in this case just being more active and eating better - some new technological solution is created to fix the problem that the earlier technologies accidentally created. Then the cycle continues and other non-intended consequences ensue. So that's all I'm saying - it's interesting to watch humanity progress. Hope it works out for everyone and it's a smashing success!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Someone1234 2y ago

It will likely save so many lives, it may still make sense to take it with those risks.

encoderer 2y ago

You might be right, but it has been in testing/development for 20 years now.

spondylosaurus 2y ago

Liraglutide, the predecessor to semaglutide, has been on the market for 15 years :)

candiddevmike 2y ago

Seems like you need to increase the usage of it as your body starts adapting to it and the weight loss plateaus. IMO, I think the hype around this drug is a bit much and I expect a significant number of users won't be able to meet or maintain their weight loss goals with it.

cthalupa 2y ago
I do think the dosing schedule should receive more personalization per-person. The schedule for tirzepatide is 2.5mg a week for the first month, then 5mg, then 7.5, etc. For me, a month in on 2.5, I was still struggling to force myself to eat enough. Zero need to move up. Some people don't feel anything at all until they're on 7.5mg, though. There's also a lot of people seeing better success with smaller doses more frequently, too. Instead of moving up to 5mg, I'm doing 2mg every 3-4 days. Loss is still steady and I'm not seeing any indication I'll need to bump up any time soon.

keeganpoppen 2y ago

it'd have to be pretty bad to outpace mortality for being obese

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BaculumMeumEst 2y ago

- Significantly increased mortality risk - Higher rates of cardiovascular disease - Type 2 diabetes - Sleep apnea and breathing problems - Osteoarthritis due to excess pressure on joints - Multiple types of cancers (colon, breast, endometrial) - Depression and anxiety from social stigma - Reduced mobility and quality of life - Higher medical costs (~$1,429 more annually per person)[1] - Decreased workplace productivity - Shorter life expectancy (can reduce by 5-10 years) Oh no wait, sorry, those are the effects of obesity. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635784/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635784/

consteval 2y ago
Right, this is what people aren't understanding. We already know the side-effects of the alternative because Western society as a whole has been living them. It's bad. The obesity epidemic causes pretty much everything bad. This drug doesn't just solve one thing, it solves hundreds or thousands of things all at once.

aantix 2y ago

Take a look at exenatide, a GLP-1 that was FDA-approved in 2005. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-exenatide-lower-or-extend-I3aNf6YCRua0ZvXEK2itgA https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-exenatide-lower-or-ext...