Share this comment
For one, I think they're not particularly impressive. Ozempic is shockingly ineffective at fat loss compared to "magic internet diets." Even the best responders to the highest dose of Tirzepatide did worse than I did on the cream diet: exfatloss.com/p/the-tot…
So why spends thousands and risk all these side effects when you can just drink…
For one, I think they're not particularly impressive. Ozempic is shockingly ineffective at fat loss compared to "magic internet diets." Even the best responders to the highest dose of Tirzepatide did worse than I did on the cream diet: https://www.exfatloss.com/p/the-totally-speculative-reason-i?utm_source=publication-search
So why spends thousands and risk all these side effects when you can just drink cream? I don't get it.
Even if there were zero side effects I wouldn't take these.
> Apparently, the skeletal muscle loss is commensurate for what you'd expect for someone who loses weight
Yes, but this is based on the mainstream CICO idea that weight can only be lost through CICO starvation. Of course if you compare it to starvation, Ozempic is merely as bad or 3x as bad" (60%, the "normal" amount on CICO is about 25%).
Of course I propose you should lose close to 0% lean mass by using a diet that fixes fuel partitioning instead of starving yourself, like I did.
> What do you think about going on a GLP-1 agonist to lose the weight (and, presumably, a lot of the stored PUFA), then switching to a maintenance low-seed-oil diet?
I think this is a terrible idea, for the simple reason that the fat loss on it will be much slower than e.g. on ex150.
Why would you spend money and risk side effects to do something more slowly with much higher lean mass loss?