And all the antivaxxers I ever knew sure like recreational substances too.
-
mRNA vaccines carry a code for your cells to produce the viral protein shells, so not only is not a living virus, it's never been the virus and could not be more harmless.
It's also impossible for it to alter your DNA.
What it could do is be weaponized to produce prions or whatever but the dummies never cry about that (because you can disprove it easily)
Your big words scare anti-vaxxers.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Anyone around here have actual experience with ozempic? My dr has actuality suggested it for a potential heart issue, to help clear up the system i guess. But everyone online talks about it like it’s heroine
-
Anyone around here have actual experience with ozempic? My dr has actuality suggested it for a potential heart issue, to help clear up the system i guess. But everyone online talks about it like it’s heroine
Before going on Ozempic, read up on current medical research (not Facebook or such shit). They discovered some not-so-good long term effects recently.
-
Before going on Ozempic, read up on current medical research (not Facebook or such shit). They discovered some not-so-good long term effects recently.
Like many medications, you are balancing the risks of continuing with an unmedicated health problem or any negative side effects of the medication.
-
When scientists warned that milk could be contaminated with bird flu and pasteurized milk was safe, they started drinking raw milk en masse. There is no logic for them.
Oppositional defiant disorder. Very well understood, researched heavily especially in young children.
-
Like many medications, you are balancing the risks of continuing with an unmedicated health problem or any negative side effects of the medication.
But with Ozempic there is some serious long-term shit going on, which is bad, as you basically have to take this stuff forever or bounce back hard faster than you saying "supersize this burger meal".
-
But with Ozempic there is some serious long-term shit going on, which is bad, as you basically have to take this stuff forever or bounce back hard faster than you saying "supersize this burger meal".
I think most medications are meant to be accompanied with permanent lifestyle changes where possible. No, you should not take this drug “forever”. If you take ozempic for weight loss but choose to continue eating like shit then it isn’t the drug’s fault. Assuming of course there isn’t some other medical disorder leading to weight gain, but again, balancing the negative health effects of obesity vs any negative effects of weight loss drugs needs to be examined by patient and physician.
-
I think most medications are meant to be accompanied with permanent lifestyle changes where possible. No, you should not take this drug “forever”. If you take ozempic for weight loss but choose to continue eating like shit then it isn’t the drug’s fault. Assuming of course there isn’t some other medical disorder leading to weight gain, but again, balancing the negative health effects of obesity vs any negative effects of weight loss drugs needs to be examined by patient and physician.
If you take ozempic for weight loss but choose to continue eating like shit then it isn’t the drug’s fault.
That's not how it works. Ozempic simply opresses the hunger feeling, therefor helping you lose weight. Problem is that still existing, but empty/depleted fat cells basically scream "we are hungry", so as soon as you get off Ozempic, you basically can't stop eating until you regained at least the former state. That was - for me - the reason not to start on Ozempic, it's like the "bounce back" effect after a diet, but on steroids. That current research has found other issues (heart problems, ocular nerve damages) just enforced my rejection (I was offered this on a free prescription base).
I think most medications are meant to be accompanied with permanent lifestyle changes where possible. No, you should not take this drug “forever”.
That is a very idealistic view, at least on some medication. With Ozempic, this is basically impossible due to the circumstances written above, with other medications it is simply due to the fact that no "lifestyle changes" can change e.g. genetic defects.
-
If you take ozempic for weight loss but choose to continue eating like shit then it isn’t the drug’s fault.
That's not how it works. Ozempic simply opresses the hunger feeling, therefor helping you lose weight. Problem is that still existing, but empty/depleted fat cells basically scream "we are hungry", so as soon as you get off Ozempic, you basically can't stop eating until you regained at least the former state. That was - for me - the reason not to start on Ozempic, it's like the "bounce back" effect after a diet, but on steroids. That current research has found other issues (heart problems, ocular nerve damages) just enforced my rejection (I was offered this on a free prescription base).
I think most medications are meant to be accompanied with permanent lifestyle changes where possible. No, you should not take this drug “forever”.
That is a very idealistic view, at least on some medication. With Ozempic, this is basically impossible due to the circumstances written above, with other medications it is simply due to the fact that no "lifestyle changes" can change e.g. genetic defects.
You completely ignored the “permanent lifestyle change” aspect. It doesn’t matter whether the person in need of weight loss does it via diet and exercise or via diet and ozempic, the diet/lifestyle that they got themselves fat on has to change.
You’re basically blaming the drug for the person’s inability to psychologically deal with diet. That isn’t what the drug does. No, you don’t need to eat back to your old weight, that’s the part where permanent change to diet comes in.
I already stated a caveat for conditions that may be outside the user’s control, so don’t use that as an excuse for all users. Yet again, the doctor and patient have to discuss the risks. I’m done here.
-
You completely ignored the “permanent lifestyle change” aspect. It doesn’t matter whether the person in need of weight loss does it via diet and exercise or via diet and ozempic, the diet/lifestyle that they got themselves fat on has to change.
You’re basically blaming the drug for the person’s inability to psychologically deal with diet. That isn’t what the drug does. No, you don’t need to eat back to your old weight, that’s the part where permanent change to diet comes in.
I already stated a caveat for conditions that may be outside the user’s control, so don’t use that as an excuse for all users. Yet again, the doctor and patient have to discuss the risks. I’m done here.
You’re basically blaming the drug for the person’s inability to psychologically deal with diet.
No, I don't. I'm just stating facts on how the human body works. With extreme willpower you might be able to counter this for a time, yes. But it will be a serious uphill battle, and the messenger chemicals from the depleted fat cells do not just stop because you will them to. You will just have to live in a state of perpetual raving hunger then. The few who can successfully overcome this for a significant time are rare, indeed.
-
You’re basically blaming the drug for the person’s inability to psychologically deal with diet.
No, I don't. I'm just stating facts on how the human body works. With extreme willpower you might be able to counter this for a time, yes. But it will be a serious uphill battle, and the messenger chemicals from the depleted fat cells do not just stop because you will them to. You will just have to live in a state of perpetual raving hunger then. The few who can successfully overcome this for a significant time are rare, indeed.
I’m down 100lbs and been chilling there for a a while actually. (I do bulk/cut cycles of around 30lbs for bodybuilding so my total weight loss fluctuates from like 120lbs to 90lbs depending on how that’s going. Just for disclosure)
But I’ve heard a few people mention this idea that “fat cells stick around forever” and “send hunger signals to fill you back up”. Do we have a scientific source for this?
My other thing with it is like, that’s not the reason someone gets fat the first time right? Because the idea is your fat cells start multiplying after a certain weight? So regardless it still seems important to address that first cause and not repeat it
But for me personally I just haven’t really experienced it at all lol. I’ve found that actually the type of food I eat makes me hungry and more likely to go off track. Like any fast food, most prepackaged snacks and prepared meals from the grocery store.
Like I could eat an 800cal pint of ice cream then have dinner 45 minutes later. But 200 calories of frozen grapes and I’m like, stuffed lol. Or I’ve also noticed if I have a doughnut in the morning (work offers them) I’m hungry all day, but eggs cheese oats and yogurt leave me satisfied to the point where I’m not hungry at all when I get home, and eat just because I know I need the nutrition from dinner.
Anyway sorry for rambling, really I’m just curious to get to the bottom of the “depleted fat cell” thing. I had never heard of it the entire time I was losing weight/maintaining then all of the sudden I’m hearing it pop up in lots of places, even lemmy now
-
I’m down 100lbs and been chilling there for a a while actually. (I do bulk/cut cycles of around 30lbs for bodybuilding so my total weight loss fluctuates from like 120lbs to 90lbs depending on how that’s going. Just for disclosure)
But I’ve heard a few people mention this idea that “fat cells stick around forever” and “send hunger signals to fill you back up”. Do we have a scientific source for this?
My other thing with it is like, that’s not the reason someone gets fat the first time right? Because the idea is your fat cells start multiplying after a certain weight? So regardless it still seems important to address that first cause and not repeat it
But for me personally I just haven’t really experienced it at all lol. I’ve found that actually the type of food I eat makes me hungry and more likely to go off track. Like any fast food, most prepackaged snacks and prepared meals from the grocery store.
Like I could eat an 800cal pint of ice cream then have dinner 45 minutes later. But 200 calories of frozen grapes and I’m like, stuffed lol. Or I’ve also noticed if I have a doughnut in the morning (work offers them) I’m hungry all day, but eggs cheese oats and yogurt leave me satisfied to the point where I’m not hungry at all when I get home, and eat just because I know I need the nutrition from dinner.
Anyway sorry for rambling, really I’m just curious to get to the bottom of the “depleted fat cell” thing. I had never heard of it the entire time I was losing weight/maintaining then all of the sudden I’m hearing it pop up in lots of places, even lemmy now
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29991030/
In adults, fat cell number is constant over time in spite of a large turnover (about 10% of the fat cells per year) when body weight is stable. A decrease in body weight only changes fat cell size (becoming smaller), whereas an increase in body weight causes elevation of both fat cell size and number in adults.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4371661/
This one's not as easy for me to quote.
Basically the gist of the whole idea is that your body maintains the level of fat cells pretty steadily as an adult. When you gain or lose weight the cells just grow or shrink, but they can only grow so big before you need new cells to store more energy and your body will build them. Each of the fat cells have a part to play in signaling that you're in a deficit and need to consume more calories (when we didn't have such calorie dense foods readily available this was probably correct most of the time). So, if you have 2 or 3 times the number of fat cells then you "should" that's increasing the signaling you receive to eat, making it harder not to (simplifying that a lot). In normal maintenance, your body still maintains that turnover pretty steadily so it generally doesn't go away.
-
Anyone around here have actual experience with ozempic? My dr has actuality suggested it for a potential heart issue, to help clear up the system i guess. But everyone online talks about it like it’s heroine
My wife has been on wegovy for about 3 months now, which is supposed to be similar. It's ok, I guess. Still ramping up to the full amount and there was one week of really bad digestion issues, but the rest has been fine. She feels full way quicker, and if you go over that amount, you start to feel nauseous, so you stop. Problem is she hasn't really done much else to help it. Still eating the same and hasn't introduced more exercising to help. So far, loss is around 15 lbs, but it's kind of sitting steady around this for a bit now.
-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29991030/
In adults, fat cell number is constant over time in spite of a large turnover (about 10% of the fat cells per year) when body weight is stable. A decrease in body weight only changes fat cell size (becoming smaller), whereas an increase in body weight causes elevation of both fat cell size and number in adults.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4371661/
This one's not as easy for me to quote.
Basically the gist of the whole idea is that your body maintains the level of fat cells pretty steadily as an adult. When you gain or lose weight the cells just grow or shrink, but they can only grow so big before you need new cells to store more energy and your body will build them. Each of the fat cells have a part to play in signaling that you're in a deficit and need to consume more calories (when we didn't have such calorie dense foods readily available this was probably correct most of the time). So, if you have 2 or 3 times the number of fat cells then you "should" that's increasing the signaling you receive to eat, making it harder not to (simplifying that a lot). In normal maintenance, your body still maintains that turnover pretty steadily so it generally doesn't go away.
I’ve read the first study already, it doesn’t comment at all on the hunger signaling aspect.
The second study is just proposing this as a mechanism which may account for weight regain. They spin off pretty quickly into a more matter-of-fact tone while presenting the hypothesis itself, but at the moment it remains speculation. I obviously haven’t had the time to click through to every reference in there, but so far the links I have checked similarly lead to speculation.
Basically I think it’s somewhat dishonest to present this hypothesis as a statement of fact. I feel like the inevitable result of this mischaracterization will cause people to not even try. Why bother if something is probably impossible, or only one in a million could do it?
Thank you for linking it however, and I will be very interested to know if Professor MacLean verifies the concept. Of note, in the conclusion they propose that environmental and behavioral interventions will be important for combatting this effect, if it does turn out to be true
-
This post did not contain any content.
My favorite hypocrite is Jenny McCarthy who obviously has never met a cosmetic injectable she doesn't like but was one of the foremost anti-vax idiots out there.
Botulism toxin injected directly into my face -
A vaccine preventing measles mumps and rubella -
️
️🩹
-
I’ve read the first study already, it doesn’t comment at all on the hunger signaling aspect.
The second study is just proposing this as a mechanism which may account for weight regain. They spin off pretty quickly into a more matter-of-fact tone while presenting the hypothesis itself, but at the moment it remains speculation. I obviously haven’t had the time to click through to every reference in there, but so far the links I have checked similarly lead to speculation.
Basically I think it’s somewhat dishonest to present this hypothesis as a statement of fact. I feel like the inevitable result of this mischaracterization will cause people to not even try. Why bother if something is probably impossible, or only one in a million could do it?
Thank you for linking it however, and I will be very interested to know if Professor MacLean verifies the concept. Of note, in the conclusion they propose that environmental and behavioral interventions will be important for combatting this effect, if it does turn out to be true
You're right the second article probably doesn't support the hunger bit enough. As i understand it, the hunger signaling is largely an absence of leptin, which is a hormone that regulates appetite. The increase in fat cells from obesity leads to more leptin production and then leptin resistance, so it's less effective. When you diet and lose the weight the fat cells aren't producing as much leptin and you're resistant to what they are producing so you're comparatively hungrier than you may have been if you stayed at a healthier weight. I believe the leptin sensitivity can recover and be improved through other ways but I'm not an expert.
-
I’m down 100lbs and been chilling there for a a while actually. (I do bulk/cut cycles of around 30lbs for bodybuilding so my total weight loss fluctuates from like 120lbs to 90lbs depending on how that’s going. Just for disclosure)
But I’ve heard a few people mention this idea that “fat cells stick around forever” and “send hunger signals to fill you back up”. Do we have a scientific source for this?
My other thing with it is like, that’s not the reason someone gets fat the first time right? Because the idea is your fat cells start multiplying after a certain weight? So regardless it still seems important to address that first cause and not repeat it
But for me personally I just haven’t really experienced it at all lol. I’ve found that actually the type of food I eat makes me hungry and more likely to go off track. Like any fast food, most prepackaged snacks and prepared meals from the grocery store.
Like I could eat an 800cal pint of ice cream then have dinner 45 minutes later. But 200 calories of frozen grapes and I’m like, stuffed lol. Or I’ve also noticed if I have a doughnut in the morning (work offers them) I’m hungry all day, but eggs cheese oats and yogurt leave me satisfied to the point where I’m not hungry at all when I get home, and eat just because I know I need the nutrition from dinner.
Anyway sorry for rambling, really I’m just curious to get to the bottom of the “depleted fat cell” thing. I had never heard of it the entire time I was losing weight/maintaining then all of the sudden I’m hearing it pop up in lots of places, even lemmy now
The "fat cells are multiplying" is normal when having surplus calories in the body. The "empty fat cells scream hunger" is something that was suspected basically for ages, but has finally be proven not long ago, the paper is less than half a year old. It had been referred to here on Lemmy, at least to a science or nature article that pointed to the paper.
-
You're right the second article probably doesn't support the hunger bit enough. As i understand it, the hunger signaling is largely an absence of leptin, which is a hormone that regulates appetite. The increase in fat cells from obesity leads to more leptin production and then leptin resistance, so it's less effective. When you diet and lose the weight the fat cells aren't producing as much leptin and you're resistant to what they are producing so you're comparatively hungrier than you may have been if you stayed at a healthier weight. I believe the leptin sensitivity can recover and be improved through other ways but I'm not an expert.
Thank you again for the link, but it seems like you’re just reiterating the hypothesis without any supporting evidence? We have a proposed mechanistic explanation for the phenomena that requires further study. My point of contention is that it should be presented as such, and not as a granted fact
-
The "fat cells are multiplying" is normal when having surplus calories in the body. The "empty fat cells scream hunger" is something that was suspected basically for ages, but has finally be proven not long ago, the paper is less than half a year old. It had been referred to here on Lemmy, at least to a science or nature article that pointed to the paper.
Could you direct me to the paper where it was proven? There seems to be a notable amount of bad journalism and broad misrepresentation of the science on this topic.
We are basically discussing whether or not obesity is an inescapable condemnation, so we should not sensationalize the topic whatsoever, and we should especially not present it as a fact if it is not a fact
-
This post did not contain any content.
¿Por qué no los dos?
I'll take every vaccine I can get. Hell, I would sign up for the smallpox vaccine if I could get it, even though that disease hasn't existed in the wild in decades. I want every covid booster. I want it all! Jab me up, give me that sweet MRNA!
And I'll take the other stuff too. I love me a good edible. I'm on tirzepatide myself, even though insurance doesn't cover it. How do I afford it? Simple! I pirate the hell out of it!
