Yet another Hacker News

GLP-1 may slow biological aging

113 points dzink 1 hour ago 86 comments

dyauspitr 1 hour ago | parent

Jesus Christ is there anything this thing can’t do?

deadlast2 57 minutes ago | parent

I have been injecting this stuff for months now with no weight loss

swingboy 56 minutes ago | parent

I think you still have to eat less.

thangalin 41 minutes ago | parent

Robert Lustig's Sugar: The Bitter Truth hammers on fructose being a major culprit to weight gain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Dr. Gil Carvalho (medical doctor, research scientist, science communicator) debunks parts of Lustig's 30-year-old claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdoDx9dIuNE

Nonetheless, Dr. Carvalho agrees with avoiding sugary drinks:

"We have a lot of recent evidence, recent studies after [Lustig's] talk. The link between soda and weight gain and obesity and other chronic diseases is quite strong."

Drink fewer sugary beverages, consume fewer calories (eat less), exercise, and drink less alcohol.

timcobb 47 minutes ago | parent

Why are you continuing then

dyauspitr 41 minutes ago | parent

One of my reports at work started out with heavy diabetes and 300 pounds. Now he’s down to under 200 and has no diabetes less than 5 months later.

mannyv 37 minutes ago | parent

If you're getting it compounded it may be time to switch providers.

Seriously, in the first week you should feel a bit of nausea at .25mg. After 2-3 weeks you should see something, either weight loss (most) or gain (some).

Or you could be one of those who have no effect, which sucks. I'd go over your process with your provider, from storage to injection.

esskay 32 minutes ago | parent

Not everyone gets nausia. On .25 I had zero side effects. At .5 minor sulpher burps that lasted a few days and then again down to zero side effects. In the online communities of people on GPL-1 very few people have side effects.

Why on earth would having no side effects suck? As long as its working (weight loss) then thats the ideal scenario.

vlyan 33 minutes ago | parent

glp1 doesn't increase your basal metabolic rate, it curbs your appetite. so it's still possible to ingest an excess of energy and to maintain your energy storage volume if you continue the dietary habits that got you fat in the first place -- eating slop and/or eating for the sake of eating.

even one caffeinated corn syrup slurpee that people consume like it's no big deal can be a quarter or more of your daily energy requirement. a few snacks on top of that and that leaves preciously little budget for real food.

astura 11 minutes ago | parent

Luckily, like exercise, there are cardiovascular benefits even without weight loss.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/weight-loss-drug-h...

andsoitis 1 hour ago | parent

> slows down the accumulation of biological aging markers in the DNA of adults with HIV

And if you don’t have HIV?

small_model 1 hour ago | parent

Easy to pick it up

MyelinatedT 36 minutes ago | parent

Not really, in most cases! I read up on the per-exposure chances of actually picking up HIV a while back[1] and was shocked at how low the risk is, especially for heterosexual men (4 in 10,000 per-exposure; insertive vaginal sex with an infected partner).

Even in the highest-risk scenario (receptive anal sex) the risk is ~138/10,000 per exposure.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195215/

serf 16 minutes ago | parent

pregnancy would seem rare too if you only looked at the averaged per-incident chances (swings from 0% to 33%ish for about 2 days for a perfectly healthy breeding-aged couple); or if you were to compare the amount of heterosexual sexual encounters overall to the amount of pregnancies.

but that's not really how the risk should be considered.

geniium 25 minutes ago | parent

I thought I was on Reddit for a split second

plutomeetsyou 1 hour ago | parent

It says 42% of treatment group showed slower aging, and reduction in telomere length... is there an effect size published anywhere?

akomtu 1 hour ago | parent

I'd be more suspicious of what side effects this thing has.

VectorLock 58 minutes ago | parent

Its been decades since it was invented so perhaps we'll find out soon.

jimmydoe 55 minutes ago | parent

you already feel it. we live in a chaotic world which is a consequence of people, especially those with power, live longer than their predecessors.

Bluestein 50 minutes ago | parent

I, for one, do not welcome our basically-inmortal AI overlords-to-be.-

timacles 25 minutes ago | parent

a cruel destiny for humanity.

Controlled by increasingly unfeeling, sociopathic masters, who grow more and more in power. And now also do not age or get sick.

The power those at the top hold far exceeds any king or emperor throughout humanities history.

Bluestein 10 minutes ago | parent

They used to poison themselves with mercury, in search of something the disembodied few will have. Black Mirror as a PSA fell short.-

orangecat 8 minutes ago | parent

Ok, can you list which diseases and conditions we should not be trying to treat because evil rich people would benefit?

barake 48 minutes ago | parent

Been on one for a few years now, it tempered my persistent auto-immune issues. Short term side effects are barely present for me. This stuff has made it so I don't have to be on steroids and antibiotics every other month. I did not start the medication for weight loss purposes, though have lost 10-15lbs, but I attribute that to being off steroids.

Long term? Who knows for sure. Semaglutide has been approved for 9 years. Liraglutide was 2009 and hasn't shown thyroid issues still. Exenatide has been available since 2005.

GLP-1s aren't new and haven't shown widespread negative issues beyond gastrointestinal upset, and that is typically fixed by... drinking more water. The trials in rats have pointed towards potential thyroid cancer risks but those haven't been seen in people.

nfw2 25 minutes ago | parent

There is reason to have some healthy skepticism for pharma. But I am sometimes astounded by how unshakably cynical people can be.

I suppose we all could wind up with cancer in 10 years or something hypothetically, due to some unforeseen mechanism. But here's my story.

I went from 200lb to 140lbs at 5' 9" over 3 years. I feel great. I don't need to eat 1000 calories before bed just to sleep through the night. I focus better at work. Blood pressure is back to normal. HDL is back to normal. I can run without joint pain. I feel good about myself. I feel comfortable going on dates. I'm not a near-obese shut-in loner that can't be in a caloric deficit without wrecking my sleep.

Unless there are literally fatal side effects, these drugs seem pretty miraculous.

astura 16 minutes ago | parent

>I suppose we all could wind up with cancer in 10 years or something hypothetically

Extremely unlikely, GLP-1 receptor agonists have been on the market for more than 20 years now, exenatide being first used in 2005.

achandra03 47 minutes ago | parent

It would be pretty funny if it turns out it doesn't have any side effects and it really is just a silver bullet.

efficax 34 minutes ago | parent

FDA approval of the first GLP-1 agonist was in 2005 and many diabetics have been taking these drugs for close to 20 years, so we have a pretty good picture of what long term side effects are: mostly GI symptoms, and you can have problems with muscle loss and bone weakening if you lose a ton of wieght. otherwise they are well tolerated.

RobotToaster 5 minutes ago | parent

I wonder if people were waiting for horrible side effects to be found after antibiotics were invented.

GenerWork 1 hour ago | parent

>They also reduce visceral and ectopic fat that accumulates around the abdomen and organs, which may help curb the inflammatory and metabolic signals that promote aging.

Interesting, I wonder if someone will do a study where they pair a GLP-1 with tesamorelin to see if there's any synergy there in terms of fat reduction and reduced aging.

bethekidyouwant 1 hour ago | parent

If the DunedinPACE test is so accurate and cheap now, there must be hundreds of people that have a baseline and also measurements after taking GLP’s… also why do you need a double blind if you have this amazing biological ageing test?

mitxela 41 minutes ago | parent

why wouldn't you need a double blind?

howunfortunate 56 minutes ago | parent

> randomized, placebo-controlled clinical evidence

> data from a...clinical trial of 108 adults with HIV associated lipohypertrophy

zer00eyz 51 minutes ago | parent

> howunfortunate

I have never seen a user name better fit a hacker news comment.

This also perfectly sums up the whole emotional roller coaster of modern science communication.Oh that could be cool (title)... Hey this might be good work... Fuck thats depressing I will never get this time back.

epistasis 39 minutes ago | parent

Why the sad face?

arecsu 30 minutes ago | parent

Title of the post hints to a generalization. Study otherwise is pretty specific in the group of people being studied.

epistasis 26 minutes ago | parent

I guess I've become so used to the Science News Cycle that I'm not even surprised when I see it behave like this:

https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

howunfortunate 10 minutes ago | parent

This, and also it's a pitifully small sample size regardless.

sdenton4 15 minutes ago | parent

They work on that group because (as the article says) they show increased aging relative to a normal group, making it easier to detect effects in a relatively short running study.

ck2 53 minutes ago | parent

but what about the people with a BMI already under 20?

not like we can take GLP-1 even if it was affordable

btw soluble fiber helps people naturally secrete more GLP-1 but of course not on the same level as a dedicated drug

maerF0x0 47 minutes ago | parent

Once at optimal bodyfat/weight afaik CRON diet is the long term solution?

barake 44 minutes ago | parent

What's preventing you from taking a GLP-1 with a BMI under 20? I started semaglutide with my BMI at 19.

WalterGR 37 minutes ago | parent

How did you get your prescription?

mattlondon 10 minutes ago | parent

In the UK you just fill in an online form. I don't think anyone is going to come and weigh you to double check what you put in the form is true. Almost zero oversight which is a bit shocking really.

astura 13 minutes ago | parent

If you don't have diabetes, it would be off label use in that case, which is not illegal.

ck2 6 minutes ago | parent

that's fascinating to me as I've not heard any similar feedback and it seemed counter-intuitive

may I ask for how long now? are you athletic? have you experienced any muscle loss?

froobius 50 minutes ago | parent

Isn't being "underweight" generally shown to reduce the speed of aging

maerF0x0 48 minutes ago | parent

Came here to say this. Also caloric deficits.

yayachiken 19 minutes ago | parent

Probably you both really mean the same thing.

Every gram of body weight needs energy to stay alive. If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight until your energy expenditure matches the caloric intake. If you stay in "caloric deficit" forever you will actually starve by definition.

Properly defining what you mean (comparatively low caloric intake without defining it via the current weight) is actually quite tricky, as your height, body composition and physical activities are all inputs to what counts as a "normal" caloric intake.

thijson 14 minutes ago | parent

I saw reports on that before the GLP1 craze. Calorie reduced diets for lab animals generally increased their life span.

AmazingEveryDay 13 minutes ago | parent

I thought caloric deficits lead to starvation.

RobotToaster 10 minutes ago | parent

Yes, people have been trying this the "old fashioned way" since the 90s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRON-diet

233mhz 7 minutes ago | parent

Yeah but that's hard, they need the magic pill

y-c-o-m-b 50 minutes ago | parent

I'm excited to see more studies done in this context, but without the HIV association. My wife has Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Rheumatoid Arthritis. She saw more benefits in inflammation reduction than weight reduction, especially those first two weeks she started taking it. She says her pain levels are night and day difference when on GLP-1 vs off. To me it would then make logical sense that reduced inflammation can have a measurably positive effect on aging.

watercolorblind 25 minutes ago | parent

Just sharing to spread the good word: with my ex-wife also having EDS and rheumatoid arthritis, she saw a large benefit from low dose naltrexone.

https://www.ehlers-danlos.com/effective-doses-of-low-dose-na...

Murfalo 48 minutes ago | parent

Let's play spot the conflict of interest. Three of seven authors tied to a company selling biological aging tests. One consults for Merck, GSK, etc.

There seems some promise at times but I also struggle to see the recent slew of "GLP-1s cure X", where X is seemingly any ailment known to man, as much more than the next Big Pharma gold rush where the profits dwarf any eventual regulatory fines, and taxpayers and real patients are left with the costs.

epistasis 41 minutes ago | parent

I am EXTREMELY skeptical of epigenetic clocks at the moment, and have been for a few years, but at the same time it's important for these clocks to be investigated and shown to be what they are.

Even though I personally expect them to be readouts of things that don't affect healthspan much, I don't have any more evidence than those trying to work out what they are. I've been wrong before, and also most tech development does not end up living to its promises, but without the investigation we'll never know.

> Big Pharma gold rush where the profits dwarf any eventual regulatory fines

With pharma malfeasance, the penalties are actually big enough, unlike most other fields. Unless you have something particular in mind?

caaqil 30 minutes ago | parent

> I am EXTREMELY skeptical of epigenetic clocks

I hear that word and I immediately think of "that" guy that runs the cocktails of additive interventions to "improve" it.

SV_BubbleTime 29 minutes ago | parent

Yes, I hear what you’re saying… Let me tell you about peptides!

twoodfin 25 minutes ago | parent

No matter what drugmakers spend money on, you hear complaints:

- Marketing, to learn what / whom / how to sell: “They spend more on TV ads than R&D!”

- Basic R&D: “Look at all the conflicts of interest in this academic research!”

- Commercial R&D: “They’re just looking for ways to extend the patent lifetime of drugs that only exist because of government-funded basic R&D!”

- Back to the shareholders (mostly pensions and retirement accounts): “Billions of stock buybacks for Wall Street!”

What should the pharmaceutical companies with billions coming in from GLP-1’s be spending their money on?

epistasis 23 minutes ago | parent

One thing they are spending them on is tons of new research. Lilly is spinning up massive facilities in Indiana, of all places. I know some absolutely fantastic researchers at Indiana University but I had never thought of it as a biotech hub before.

epmaybe 22 minutes ago | parent

Lilly is headquartered in Indiana so it isn’t some huge surprise..

retsibsi 22 minutes ago | parent

You may be right that they are in a bind wrt public opinion. But that is not a defence against any specific criticism. What is your opinion on the conflict of interest mentioned above?

twoodfin 19 minutes ago | parent

How is it a conflict of interest for GLP-1 makers and the scientists who work with/for them to look for new medical value in an academic setting with willing collaborators and all the usual peer review?

dgacmu 14 minutes ago | parent

It's not but there's a lot of historical evidence that those situations are more likely to produce research that looks favorible to the sponsoring company. So it means you have to be a little more careful when looking at those results.

twoodfin 10 minutes ago | parent

What evidence are you talking about? Do you think industrial scientists collaborating with academics and vice-versa is unusual?

anothermathbozo 19 minutes ago | parent

What’s the concern here? Too much justice? Holding powerful institutes to account frequently seems like a good thing to me.

ivl 5 minutes ago | parent

Much like the conspiracy that pharma companies are uninterested in curing diseases, the complaints aren't based on data or facts.

I'll offer cystic fibrosis as an example. Trikafta may as well be a miracle drug. And CRISPR-based gene editing and replacements are being researched that could be an outright cure, as opposed to a 90% cure.

tptacek 18 minutes ago | parent

I don't understand this fixation. If you literally had a cure for X for X in all ailments known to man, you would in fact have a Pharma gold rush.

dockien 12 minutes ago | parent

it's low quality research. you don't need to point to perceived conflicts of interest. the drug is semaglutide, not a merck or gsk product. and semaglutide is coming of patent anyway

nhangen 44 minutes ago | parent

They also cause sexual dysfunction while you're taking them. Not a problem I guess when you're overweight, but on weight...it's a huge problem.

mannyv 34 minutes ago | parent

That's not a common side effect, and I've been watching GLPs for years. In fact, it's more likely to cause divorces due to, you know, becoming more attractive.

esskay 31 minutes ago | parent

Or put another way, "Let me pluck one of the rare side effects and make it seem like its a common one because I know nothing about this"

mitxela 42 minutes ago | parent

Presumably mediated by caloric intake reduction, which is already known to slow aging?

NiloCK 42 minutes ago | parent

If two cars are each three years old, but one has had twice as much gas consumption as the other, which would you expect to show more wear on its comppnents?

Caloric churn is putting the body's systems through their paces - at the very least for everything related to digestion. But really most of life is well described as pieces of a metabolic process.

m3rc 40 minutes ago | parent

This is such an oversimplification of complex biological processes that it borders on medieval superstition.

echelon 40 minutes ago | parent

Oxygen is a reactive species, that's how we do what we do. How we swim the thermodynamic eddies and flows across quadrillions of chemical reactions.

But burning that fuel is damaging.

dozerly 38 minutes ago | parent

Comparisons like this, while seeming to make sense using “common sense” rarely impart any value or scientific meaning. Maybe it works like that, maybe it doesn’t.

If as a result of less caloric consumption you’re starving your cells of needed nutrients, maybe that’s the one that degrades earlier.

dimes 35 minutes ago | parent

Should we similarly expect those who use their muscles more to be in worse condition than someone who doesn’t exercise?

pton_xd 34 minutes ago | parent

If a car sits idle for months at a time, its rubber seals and gaskets will degrade faster ... so, obviously, according to this bullet-proof analogy, a human that doesn't exercise will be in worse condition.

cabarltos 41 minutes ago | parent

This feels like the early days of medical marijuana where everything was sunshine and rainbows, and then 10 years later we realize yes, there are still drawbacks.

Aurornis 27 minutes ago | parent

There is a gold rush happening where every health influencer, telehealth prescriber, and even aging services provider (as is the case with some of these study authors) is trying to push this medication for a wider audience.

Medical marijuana was different, though. The negatives were known medically before and after. The push was almost entirely political and on social media. The few places medical marijuana were medically pushed were either for highly specific applications or as a harm reduction measure: Either as an alternative for patients who demanded opioids (medical marijuana isn’t actually a viable substitute for opioids in severe high level pain, but it’s common for patients to demand to be prescribed something “stronger” for lesser conditions and there was a real problem with opioid over prescription at the time) or from the sector of medicine that sees that patients are seeking out drugs anyway and thought this was a better way to control and monitor it. The way it worked out in practice became a laughable loophole where anyone who wants a card can pay $100 for a meeting with a prescriber who will give leading questions until you say the right things to get the card, which wasn’t even what the original medical marijuana proposals were about.

In the medical and research world, there was never an illusion that marijuana was actually entirely harmless and without drawbacks, except for fringe papers and a few politically motivated researchers.

nfw2 19 minutes ago | parent

yes a weight loss drug for a country that is over 70% overweight is absolutely the same as a psychoactive drug with well-understood cognitive side effects and abuse risk, a perfect analogy

guntribam 34 minutes ago | parent

scy hub link? anyone?

rvz 22 minutes ago | parent

Of course it does. /s

How much are the pharma companies paying people to project this nonsense to trick people to take these drugs to make money out of it?

This is the new grift.