Thread

Hair Loss Was Just the Start. Ozempic Users Are Also Reporting Nail Trouble

67 points · 73 comments · gumby

krisroadruck · 1790993093 · focus · HN ↗
Reporting on these drugs is so bad. Most of the benefits AND downsides they keep reporting are the same for any major rapid weight loss. Be it hair shedding or sleep apnea resolving. They keep acting like these are novel drug specific side effects rather than weight-loss related side effects.
1. chis · 1790993547 · focus · HN ↗
  At this point it might legit be impossible for a side effect to be discovered that outweighs the immense health benefits of losing weight.
  It feels like people want there to be some horrible side effect to these drugs. Idk if it’s some moral objection to weight loss without discipline, or just general mistrust of big pharma.
  1. crooked-v · 1790994165 · focus · HN ↗
    It's absolutely the moral thing. Even on HN there are an endless number of people who treat the use of GLP-1s as a failure that must be publicly shamed.
    atmavatar · 1791000025 · focus · HN ↗
    I suspect a big part of that stems from the fact that many people treat being overweight as a moral failure in and of itself, and rather than repenting and doing the morally right and correct thing to lose the weight on your own, using a GLP-1 is "cheating".
    Of course, all that ignores that people's bodies are different, and some people will be slim no matter what they do, while others are doomed to be heavier regardless what they do on their own (barring extremes like developing eating disorders), but I'm not sure it would matter even should everyone understand that -- a large proportion of people need someone they perceive as lesser whom they can look down upon, and physical appearance is a quick and easy means to categorize others.
    throwaway398483 · 1791018984 · focus · HN ↗
    > others are doomed to be heavier regardless what they do on their own
    While this is true in individual cases, it is obviously not by any means common. Unless the human species has had some extreme mutations in the last 100 years (and only in the West). Yet this is brought up in every thread about obesity, because believing yourself to lack agency is more convenient.
    alexgieg · 1791019989 · focus · HN ↗
    There are three levels to this. One are individuals with bodies that gain weight regardless of what the person does.
    The second is psychological, people whose bodies work normally and they do everything wrong on their own.
    The third is structural. Countries in which a huge part of the population is obese while other similar countries don't have that problem, have systemic issues that cause that. In the US it's the fact policies all around favor food that cause obesity and make healthy food be extremely expensive, which is the opposite of what countries where obesity is uncommon do.
    Fix this last issue, wait two to three generations, and you'll see obesity fall to normal levels, at which point, yes, bringing up the moral argument for some of the few remaining cases may even become valid.
    dingaling · 1791024941 · focus · HN ↗
    "One are individuals with bodies that gain weight regardless of what the person does."
    Physically, that's not possible. If calories consumed is less than calories burned, the body cannot add weight. It doesn't have access to zero-point energy.
    preg_match · 1791046276 · focus · HN ↗
    Physically, it is possible, and you noted it in your comment. “Calories burned” - what could possibly make you think this is fixed across all humans?
    There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body and to not use energy. Whether it be physical disability that prevent movement, or diseases that dis-regulate your metabolism.
    There are many people who eat sufficient food and are perpetually lethargic. Their body has the energy, and chooses not to use it.
    When I did chemo, I actually put on weight, despite eating almost nothing. I had pretty bad nausea despite my 4 anti-emetics, so food was difficult to eat. Even drinking water was hard.
    So how could I have possibly put on weight? Well I was sleeping 16+ hours a day, not moving at all, and my hormones plummeted. I lost most of the muscle on my body. I obviously don’t know what my basal metabolic rate was, but it must have been incredibly low. Even my brain, which uses a lot of calories, didn’t work right. I couldn’t think right.
    pandaman · 1791054574 · focus · HN ↗
    If you didn't use energy, you would not need to breath: breath is driven by the CO2 accumulation and the CO2 is a byproduct of the body extracting energy from organic matter. And if you believe you use energy but very little compared to the lucky individuals with god-like metabolism then you would be able to breath very infrequently (and your heart rate would also be low) compared to them.
    preg_match · 1791055167 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a very surface-level and primitive analysis. Of course the amount of energy you use varies based off of your activities and the state of your body. Never did I say I used "zero energy", you're fighting ghosts here.
    Rather, my point was simple: calories-in and calories-out is correct, but the mistake evangelists of this ideology make is assuming calories-out is fixed or even a simple equation. It's not, and this is what pushes your narrative from "science" to "ideology".
    pandaman · 1791055768 · focus · HN ↗
    >Never did I say I used "zero energy"
    Indeed, you said this instead:
    >There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body and to not use energy
    Now, grammatically it makes no sense, but I thought "and" was just a typo and then sentence read as: "There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body to not use energy" to witch I responded.
    EPWN3D · 1791044290 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you're mostly right, but there's nuance. Modern society has basically made the penalty for certain genetic traits way more severe because calories are so easy to access. In the past, if you had a genetic predisposition to over-eating, it wasn't going to really catch up with you due to overall scarcity.
    But now? You pay a very heavy price because you can very cheaply get your entire daily supply of calories in a single meal.
    And don't forget, a lot of these people are set up for failure by their parents. The number of overweight children I see is staggering. These kids are almost certain to spend their lives being overweight or obese because of what their parents feed them. A drug that helps someone overcome that is a very good thing.
    xnx · 1791128058 · focus · HN ↗
    > because believing yourself to lack agency is more convenient.
    That's part of it. A very motivated 5' 9" person can learn to dunk a basketball, but it's a lot easier for someone who is 6' 4".
    Similarly, there are probably built-in biological settings for how strongly someone feels the desire to eat.
    ffsm8 · 1791031978 · focus · HN ↗
    > people treat being overweight as a moral failure in and of itself
    the thing is though, at least as far as our society is concerned: thats a fact not a missrepresentation
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony
    and yes, using tools like GLP-1 is a moral failing. a proper christian would just be more disciplined. and be a straight up better human from that too.
    but hey, i'm an atheist, and struggled with my weight all my life to varying degrees. The way fat people generally undersell the issue that theyre fat and keep wanting to be victiums / not responsible for their own actions is extremely dystopian however. and its flabbergasting our societies have degraded so far to no longer even be able to tell that.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.