There’s growing evidence of cardioprotective effects independent from weight loss.
Eg https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> The cardioprotective effects of semaglutide were independent of baseline adiposity and weight loss and had only a small association with waist circumference, suggesting some mechanisms for benefit beyond adiposity reduction.
https://www.kidneyfund.org/treatments/medicines-kidney-disea...
I'm a big fan of intermittent and water fasting. Have seen things in my blood work that doctors would require me on meds to reverse. Outside of that, I can't speak to the positive impacts on my mood, and general ability to focus.
The simplest solution to a lot of problems is consuming less with the assumption that, most of us (maybe not you), have a lot of spare energy sitting around.
A lie that we don't unlearn as we grow up is we "require" three meals a day. This is true for children who need obscene amounts of energy to grow, but, not for us desk-bound adults.
In the end, giving the body a break to heal by fasting or just consuming significantly less is going to leave more resources for the body energy to deal with other things.
He had a patient with metabolic markers that were not improving and they had exhausted all the typical avenues. Presumably they were things like weight loss.
They put the patient on GLP-1 but injected into the thighs (or butt, I don't recall) for the metabolic benefits without the hunger blunting effects.
It seems like GLP1, even in skinny patients (implied by Attia in this particular case), has metabolic benefits.
The longevity community seems to be hinting that there may be geroprotective aspects of GLp1 as well, so we may be looking at the benefits beyond weight loss for metabolism.
Don't listen to these YouTubers about health and fitness, most of them are clueless
Usually this type of anecdata becomes the basis of legitimate, controlled studies and over time can inform and/or adjust.
It would be premature to simply write off all influencers or limiting to only accept the medical profession as the immutable truth.
The reality tends to exist somewhere in the middle, outside of a formal proof.
I've listened to many health influencers and among the legitimate and balanced tend to be Rhonda Patrick and Peter Attia.
Attia provides guidelines for how to think about items, but usually it's the fan base that tends to sully the messaging as the base tends to be far more polarized and dogmatic over bits.
It is interesting to see that there is another poster confirming a slightly different effect though. Regardless of things being "systemic", just understanding that fluids dynamics are complex, I imagine diffusion of a systemic molecule like GLp1 could possibly be variable? Or perhaps there is a localized tissue fatigue?
Many potential options do exist to propose as hypothesis.
Slower absorption in the thigh may blunt the immediate peak dosing and the acute hunger effects.
As always, the small details matter. I'd guess that pharmacology also has their own thundering herd problem with the dosing of certain drugs.
One of the interesting bits about pharmacology seems to not be the active molecule as much as the innovations in delivery mechanism.
He really shouldn't be lumped in with the general "health and fitness Youtubers".
> They put the patient on GLP-1 but injected into the thighs (or butt, I don't recall) for the metabolic benefits without the hunger blunting effects.
Obviously a healthy lifestyle is good. And this includes not eating over your requirements. But sometimes there is actually something defective, or something sick. And in these cases, first trying out to just eat healthy can worsen the situation.
> The simplest solution to a lot of problems is consuming less with the assumption that, most of us (maybe not you), have a lot of spare energy sitting around.
as energy-woo / thanks-I’m-cured material.
You can weasel your way around criticism by calling it “a general and fairly anodyne opinion about what might be a solution to a problem some people have,” but consider -
It does make sense that someone who’s struggled with a chronic condition would be tired and embittered by the endless snake oil evangelizing they’ve had to endure, on top of already struggling with their health.
(Not that fasting doesn’t work for some people, as you say! it’s more the grandiose claim that it’s “The simplest solution to a lot of problems” coupled with some vague anecdote about blood work and knowing better than doctors that waves a red flag)
Sources?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting
- https://zerolongevity.com/blog/the-history-of-fasting/There's no chance it has anything to do with the last few million years of our evolution. It has no benefit or relevance now.
It's not so much about how often you eat but what and how much. Generally speaking, of course, I can't speak for any benefits of intermittent fasting (assuming equal daily calorie / macronutrient intake) because I'm uneducated in that regard. But TL;DR, I will agree that desk jockeys will need less calories than people with a more active job or lifestyle, and people need to adjust their lifestyle accordingly else they'll gain weight.
Also the body gets used to not being full all the time, it will stop signalling so hard.
Try it in the weekends first? Once you start enjoying the feeling, and you will, it will happen by itself.
Because the body flushes all stored up energy when you wake up, likely an evolutionary adaptation as breakfast was rarely served on a silver plate.
Just make your point, as clearly and persuasively as possible.
But the less I eat, the better my health gets; I'm down to one normal sized meal per day, have been doing that for months.
A different study "GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and the Risk of Thyroid Cancer" was published in the Diabates Care journal in February 2023*
The conclusion of the 2023 study: "we found increased risk of all thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid cancer with use of GLP-1 RA, in particular after 1–3 years of treatment."
I wonder what the mechanistic hypothesis could be for GLP-1s increasing thyroid cancer _incidence_ (the probability of thyroid cancer occurring in patients taking GLP-1s) but increasing colon cancer _survival_ (the probability of surviving in patients taking GLP-1s who have colon cancer).
Of course there are numerous important differences across the studies (cancer type, France vs. USA data, etc.), I'm just curious about a why this might be the case.
*https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article-abstract/46/2/384/...
Below a table, it says "adjusted for social deprivation index, hypo- and hyperthyroidism, and use of other antidiabetic drugs..." -- but nothing about obesity.
What if the GLP-1-prescribed patients tended to be more obese?
> After adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), disease severity and other health factors, GLP-1 users still showed significantly lower odds of death, suggesting a strong and independent protective effect.
The observed reduction in mortality is also quite large:
> Health sites, researchers found that those taking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) medications were less than half as likely to die within five years compared to those who weren’t on the drugs (15.5% vs. 37.1%).
More research is needed, but if I were diagnosed with colon cancer I would definitely be asking my doctor about the risks vs. potential benefits of getting on GLP-1 meds based on this study alone.
Given it’s an observational study, I would bet on the latter. It’s really hard to know you’ve controlled for all confounding factors, and there’s a strong null hypothesis because we know that losing weight can have huge and wide-ranging health benefits.