Help with Weightloss (Girl)

[Lunex]

Hello Meso!

I’m on a journey to lose some weight and would love to gather some tips and guidance. If anyone has experience with effective methods for weight loss
Any recommendations on what to use and how would be incredibly helpful as I embark on this journey.

I'm not scared of needles
Ozempic/WeGovy sounds too expensive.

Would any recommend Cagrilintide / Cagrisema over Semaglutide or Tirze?
I wanna start of low dosages for the first 2 months, unless there is not alot of side effects or nausea.

Stats:
Woman
23 Years Old.
Height: 155 CM
Weight: 63 KG

Goal:
Weight: 53-55 KG

Thank you in advance for your support!

 

[BuildABro]

I did. I found some data around gut health, micronutrient deficiency, and inflammation. Though the latter is kinda nebulous independent of a caloric surplus.

I found a whole lot of literature that suggests that ultra-processed foods lead to a caloric surplus and that's bad, but we all knew that. Other than the above, I could find very little that shows harm in the absence of a surplus.

Then you are not looking very hard. MSG and high fructose corn syrup alone could keep you reading for about the next decade. Then you can move on to lovely trans fats, sulfites and nitrates and all the various food dyes.

You may as well drink a bottle of Penzoil. But it’s your body, so go for it. bon appetit

 

[bigMoJo]

Then you are not looking very hard. MSG and high fructose corn syrup alone could keep you reading for about the next decade. Then you can move on to lovely trans fats, sulfites and nitrates and all the various food dyes.

You may as well drink a bottle of Penzoil. But it’s your body, so go for it. bon appetit

Why dont you post link's of the pertinent info you've found?

 

[BuildABro]

Why dont you post link's of the pertinent info you've found?

I could take the time to do so, but on the other hand if people don’t have the priority to investigate what they are putting in their own bodies of their own accord then I would call that highly problematic.

Not to mention, the fact that we are even having this discussion is rather silly. Do you really need anyone to tell you that eating ultra processed garbage is bad for you? I mean, cmon now.

 

[egruberman]

Then you are not looking very hard. MSG and high fructose corn syrup alone could keep you reading for about the next decade. Then you can move on to lovely trans fats, sulfites and nitrates and all the various food dyes.

You may as well drink a bottle of Penzoil. But it’s your body, so go for it. bon appetit

Are you just parroting shit you’ve heard at this point?

There’s no plausible evidence that shows MSG is harmful. Moreover if you take foods naturally high in glutamic acid, like mushrooms or anchovies or Parmigiano Reggiano, or fish sauce or what have you and combine with salt to achieve the desired amount of umami, you end up with…. MSG.

High fructose corn syrup is terrible, terrible stuff, in the sense that any carbohydrate with a high glycemic index when consumed in a surplus will cause all kinds of metabolic disregulation.

Trans fats are illegal. Sure, they’re harmful, but also the elimination of trans fats has done nothing for the obesity epidemic.

Sulfites and nitrites have some health concerns but the link to cancer is more tenuous than the press would have you believe.

We could go on, but it’s pointless. You’re simply missing the point that the primary cause for the obesity epidemic in the US and the rest of the world is caloric surplus. You’re a bro, says so in your username. Don’t all bros say, “it’s just calories in, calories out!”

The caloric surplus is easily remedied with a GLP-1 RA. There’s no need for judgement, no need for education, no need for any other kind of intervention to solve that one problem.

 

[BuildABro]

Are you just parroting shit you’ve heard at this point?

There’s no plausible evidence that shows MSG is harmful. Moreover if you take foods naturally high in glutamic acid, like mushrooms or anchovies or Parmigiano Reggiano, or fish sauce or what have you and combine with salt to achieve the desired amount of umami, you end up with…. MSG.

High fructose corn syrup is terrible, terrible stuff, in the sense that any carbohydrate with a high glycemic index when consumed in a surplus will cause all kinds of metabolic disregulation.

Trans fats are illegal. Sure, they’re harmful, but also the elimination of trans fats has done nothing for the obesity epidemic.

Sulfites and nitrites have some health concerns but the link to cancer is more tenuous than the press would have you believe.

We could go on, but it’s pointless. You’re simply missing the point that the primary cause for the obesity epidemic in the US and the rest of the world is caloric surplus. You’re a bro, says so in your username. Don’t all bros say, “it’s just calories in, calories out!”

The caloric surplus is easily remedied with a GLP-1 RA. There’s no need for judgement, no need for education, no need for any other kind of intervention to solve that one problem.

Of course I manage calories. I am not denying the laws of thermodynamics here, but I also manage macros and nutritional profile too. Just about every bro that is worth his weight in bar clamps does the same. Just about no other subset of the population is more meticulous about nutrition than bodybuilders. There is also just about no subset of the population more adept at manipulating their body body composition, seemingly at will, than body builders. Look around you. You see this on display here literally daily.

If you are of the opinion that nutrition is irrelevant, then I guess you are entitled to that belief. Have at those ho-ho’s, ding-dongs, Fritos, and gas station burritos. Provided you keep calories in check, yes, you won’t get fat. But good luck keeping up with me in the gym.

In any event, I have enjoyed hashing out this discussion with you. It’s a lost art around these parts but I can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[bigMoJo]

Of course I manage calories. I am not denying the laws of thermodynamics here, but I also manage macros and nutritional profile too. Just about every bro that is worth his weight in bar clamps does the same. Just about no other subset of the population is more meticulous about nutrition than bodybuilders. There is also just about no subset of the population more adept at manipulating their body body composition, seemingly at will, than body builders. Look around you. You see this on display here literally daily.

If you are of the opinion that nutrition is irrelevant, then I guess you are entitled to that belief. Have at those ho-ho’s, ding-dongs, Fritos, and gas station burritos. Provided you keep calories in check, yes, you won’t get fat. But good luck keeping up with me in the gym.

In any event, I have enjoyed hashing out this discussion with you. It’s a lost art around these parts but I can disagree without being disagreeable.

You fell into @Sam312xx 's paltry debate—spewing a desultory argument—mutating at each step after failing. I mean, WTF? Already said... "we know this already." He's like Monthy Python's Black Knight.

With all due respect, @Sam312xx your argument ranged from hypocrisy to babble. And @BuildABro you progressed lockstep with him...
Beating A Dead Horse!

 

[Sam312xx]

I challenge you to find anything in the literature that teases apart the health impact of consuming processed food that is independent of the fact that the consumption of processed, ultra-palatable foods tends to lead to a caloric surplus.

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Of course. Here is one:

Dicken, S., & Batterham, R. (2021). The Role of Diet Quality in Mediating the Association between Ultra-Processed Food Intake, Obesity and Health-Related Outcomes: A Review of Prospective Cohort Studies. Nutrients, 14. The Role of Diet Quality in Mediating the Association between Ultra-Processed Food Intake, Obesity and Health-Related Outcomes: A Review of Prospective Cohort Studies.

Nutrient deficiencies, inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, increasing the risk of chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and depression.

You seemed to have read something that doesn’t exist.

I never said you explicitly stated the Twinkie diet was “okay”. My point was that you’re using it as an example to support a reductionist approach to weight loss, which, whether intended or not, encourages the idea that the quality of food doesn’t matter as long as there’s a caloric deficit.

I did not write that a Twinkie diet is “okay”, however it is an example that people can consume shit food in a caloric deficit and have improved health outcomes

Weight loss doesn’t automatically equal improved health outcomes. Not following a diet or exercising can increase the risk of long term issues like chronic inflammation, nutrient deficiencies, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular problems even on a caloric deficit.

Is it okay? Nope, not something I’d recommend. Does it work? Yes.

You acknowledge it’s not okay, yet you’re using it as an example of what “works.” That’s contradictory. Just because something works doesn’t mean it’s a healthy or sustainable approach. It’s like saying smoking can help keep someone thin. Technically true, but the long term consequences make it a terrible choice.

What it appears that you’re failing to do is apply principles of reductionism

Your reductionism is wrong. Reducing health to just caloric deficit and weight loss ignores the broader, more important aspects of nutrition. A diet filled with processed, nutrient poor foods will eventually lead to negative long term outcomes, even if there’s short term weight loss.

If the goal is weight loss, and obesity is problematic, then I’m going to employ only those mitigations which are necessary and sufficient to address the problem

Obesity is not just about weight loss. It's about metabolic health, nutrient status, and long term disease prevention. You may treat the symptom (weight), but you’re neglecting the root cause (poor nutrition and lifestyle choices) that will eventually lead to other problems down the line.

While I readily agree that lifestyle change in terms of diet and exercise are beneficial, encouraging them is an unnecessary impediment to achieving the desired outcomes.

Encouraging healthy eating and exercise isn't an impediment, it’s the foundation for sustainable, long term health.

 

[BuildABro]

This is about the last place in the universe I would have anticipated having such a discussion, but it’s been interesting nonetheless.

Of course. Here is one:

Dicken, S., & Batterham, R. (2021). The Role of Diet Quality in Mediating the Association between Ultra-Processed Food Intake, Obesity and Health-Related Outcomes: A Review of Prospective Cohort Studies. Nutrients, 14. The Role of Diet Quality in Mediating the Association between Ultra-Processed Food Intake, Obesity and Health-Related Outcomes: A Review of Prospective Cohort Studies.

Nutrient deficiencies, inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, increasing the risk of chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and depression.



I never said you explicitly stated the Twinkie diet was “okay”. My point was that you’re using it as an example to support a reductionist approach to weight loss, which, whether intended or not, encourages the idea that the quality of food doesn’t matter as long as there’s a caloric deficit.



Weight loss doesn’t automatically equal improved health outcomes. Not following a diet or exercising can increase the risk of long term issues like chronic inflammation, nutrient deficiencies, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular problems even on a caloric deficit.



You acknowledge it’s not okay, yet you’re using it as an example of what “works.” That’s contradictory. Just because something works doesn’t mean it’s a healthy or sustainable approach. It’s like saying smoking can help keep someone thin. Technically true, but the long term consequences make it a terrible choice.



Your reductionism is wrong. Reducing health to just caloric deficit and weight loss ignores the broader, more important aspects of nutrition. A diet filled with processed, nutrient poor foods will eventually lead to negative long term outcomes, even if there’s short term weight loss.



Obesity is not just about weight loss. It's about metabolic health, nutrient status, and long term disease prevention. You may treat the symptom (weight), but you’re neglecting the root cause (poor nutrition and lifestyle choices) that will eventually lead to other problems down the line.



Encouraging healthy eating and exercise isn't an impediment, it’s the foundation for sustainable, long term health.

 

[egruberman]

Here is one

Yes, that study suggests that consumption of ultra processed foods leads to obesity. The mechanism of which is that people tend to eat those foods in a surplus. It says nothing about negative health outcomes when UPF are consumed in a deficit.

Nutrient deficiencies, inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, increasing the risk of chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and depression.

These will all occur as a result of over-consumption.

which, whether intended or not, encourages the idea that the quality of food doesn’t matter as long as there’s a caloric deficit.

Yup, that's precisely what I'm doing, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Implicit in your arguments seems to be a judgement about what's led to obesity. I don't wish to make that same judgement. If someone were at risk of cancer, and there was a pill to make the cancer go away, would you suggest lifestyle and behavior change? We know that certain lifestyle and behavior changes reduce the risk of cancer, but still.

Your reductionism is wrong. Reducing health to just caloric deficit and weight loss ignores the broader, more important aspects of nutrition. A diet filled with processed, nutrient poor foods will eventually lead to negative long term outcomes, even if there’s short term weight loss.

The topic in question is obesity and the downstream negative effects of that, metabolic dysregulation, type 2 diabetes, etc. A caloric deficit will cure that. Full stop. All the other negative health outcomes you describe exist, but fall way, way down the list of things that concern society as a whole.

you’re neglecting the root cause (poor nutrition and lifestyle choices)

Here again is the judgement implicit in your arguments. You presume poor nutrition and lifestyle in all cases. Likely true in most, but still irrelevant, not least of which is that to date, nobody has figured out how to modify these things on the population at large successfully, whereas we have the tools to successfully treat obesity.

Encouraging healthy eating and exercise isn't an impediment, it’s the foundation for sustainable, long term health.

Presuming our goal is to treat obesity, then that's what should happen. Everything else is extraneous.

 

[egruberman]

If you are of the opinion that nutrition is irrelevant, then I guess you are entitled to that belief. Have at those ho-ho’s, ding-dongs, Fritos, and gas station burritos. Provided you keep calories in check, yes, you won’t get fat. But good luck keeping up with me in the gym.

I don't hold the opinion that nutrition is irrelevant. What I do have are principles about what I think is necessary for treating obesity in the general population. I would never expect, nor encourage any rando to approach nutrition, health, and fitness in the ways that I do. It would be a recipe for failure.

 

[Sam312xx]

Yes, that study suggests that consumption of ultra processed foods leads to obesity. The mechanism of which is that people tend to eat those foods in a surplus. It says nothing about negative health outcomes when UPF are consumed in a deficit.

It does, read again. The paper discusses that the adverse consequences of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are independent of dietary quality or pattern.

These will all occur as a result of over-consumption.

No, these can occur regardless of over-consumption.

Yup, that's precisely what I'm doing, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Implicit in your arguments seems to be a judgement about what's led to obesity. I don't wish to make that same judgement. If someone were at risk of cancer, and there was a pill to make the cancer go away, would you suggest lifestyle and behavior change? We know that certain lifestyle and behavior changes reduce the risk of cancer, but still.

Nutrient deficiencies can still occur in a caloric deficit. An unhealthy diet, even when restricted in calories, lacks essential nutrients.

As to judging, I made it clear in my earlier posts that biological mechanisms play a role, and some people, for a multitude of reasons, are not able to follow a healthy diet to attain their goals and should use medical aid if that's avaliable.

The topic in question is obesity and the downstream negative effects of that, metabolic dysregulation, type 2 diabetes, etc. A caloric deficit will cure that. Full stop. All the other negative health outcomes you describe exist, but fall way, way down the list of things that concern society as a whole.

Poor diet quality can still lead to chronic diseases, even if weight is managed. Weight loss alone won’t prevent long term health risks tied to poor nutrition.

Here again is the judgement implicit in your arguments. You presume poor nutrition and lifestyle in all cases. Likely true in most, but still irrelevant, not least of which is that to date, nobody has figured out how to modify these things on the population at large successfully, whereas we have the tools to successfully treat obesity.

Ignoring nutrition and lifestyle leads to short term fixes. Sustainable health requires addressing these root causes, or weight regain and health issues will resurface, even if obesity is temporarily solved.

Presuming our goal is to treat obesity, then that's what should happen. Everything else is extraneous.

Treating obesity without improving diet and lifestyle is a band aid solution. Long term health requires more than just weight loss, it requires good nutrition and exercise to prevent future issues.

 

[egruberman]

Treating obesity without improving diet and lifestyle is a band aid solution.

This is patently irrational. If obesity can be treated irrespective of diet and lifestyle, and we're discovering that it can, then outcomes will improve, regardless. This obviously troubles you, but for what reason, I've yet to surmise.

 

[Sam312xx]

This is patently irrational. If obesity can be treated irrespective of diet and lifestyle, and we're discovering that it can, then outcomes will improve, regardless. This obviously troubles you, but for what reason, I've yet to surmise.

Irrational is believing that eating junk is fine as long as there’s a caloric deficit. Or that promoting healthy habits can be an “impediment." Or mentioning a guy losing 30 pounds by exclusively eating Twinkies as an example to support an approach to weight loss. Or being unable to understand that weight loss doesn’t automatically equal improved health outcomes.

There's a lot of irrationality going on here, I’m just disappointed that with all the information that's available to you, these are the conclusions that you’ve come to.

 

[IronMetal_2]

Irrational is believing that eating junk is fine as long as there’s a caloric deficit. Or that promoting healthy habits can be an “impediment." Or mentioning a guy losing 30 pounds by exclusively eating Twinkies as an example to support an approach to weight loss. Or being unable to understand that weight loss doesn’t automatically equal improved health outcomes.

There's a lot of irrationality going on here, I’m just disappointed that with all the information that's available to you, these are the conclusions that you’ve come to.

You are right. Obviously these medications should always be used in conjunction with a healthy, broad-spectrum diet and exercise.
If for whatever reason the patient can not adhere to a better diet, it is still better for them being on these drugs, losing weight while eating junk. Their health will still benefit, just not as much as if they were to adhere to a healthy diet.

Not being overweight, regardless of diet, will always be better health wise than being obese with insulin resistance etc.

I'd go as far saying that most normal-weight guys with bad diet will still be healthier than an obese person on a healthy, albeit obviously calorie surplus, diet.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Follow the research of Kevin Hall. He's been leading the charge with high quality RCTs on ultra-processed foods (UPF). Controlling for macronutrients [mostly].

Next up is an isocaloric UPF feeding trial which should be interesting. I suspect UPF will appear far less harmful when not consumed in a surplus. At least as far as metabolic health is concerned.

 

[Sam312xx]

Follow the research of Kevin Hall. He's been leading the charge with high quality RCTs on ultra-processed foods (UPF). Controlling for macronutrients [mostly].

Next up is an isocaloric UPF feeding trial which should be interesting. I suspect UPF will appear far less harmful when not consumed in a surplus. At least as far as metabolic health is concerned.

I've read some of his work, but it was mostly for individuals on a surplus.

I don't think his isocaloric UPF feeding will have significant findings unless he is using a completely different methodology. There is a lot of existing research regarding the consumption of UPF's while accounting for overall calorie consumption to isolate the effect of UPF on health outcomes.

For example, for T2DM the HR per 10% increase in UPF was 1.15 with a 95% CI in a 2020 trial.

I've seen some sources go up to north of 40% but it's those diabetes publications/journals and I don't really know what's up with those.