Weight-Loss Drugs?

[bilby]

You burn more calories standing still with a pack than without. Your muscles are costantly flexing to keep you upright.

Humans, unlike most primates, can lock their knees, so this is true in other chimpanzee species, but not in humans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think you have to be wary of big pharma marketing sources. The industry smells big profits making people dependent on more drugs.

Big Pharma made a drug to manage insulin levels for diabetics, reducing the need to take insulin (which can save a lot of money). Drug works, and in a lot of people, weight loss is a thing with that drug. Yes, Big Pharma is licking its lips, but this kind of just happened. It isn't a conspiracy. It isn't to get people addicted to a weight loss drug.

It is like minoxidil, which was developed to treat hypertension. Turned out, patients were growing hair.

Don't forget how oxy was pushed by drug companies. You can bet doctors are being pushed to prescribe them.

I wonder if part of it s the placebo effect. People believe they will eat less so they will eat less

My FIL is anecdotal, but he is also very well read on the subject, being a phenomenal doctor. His weight loss under the drug is real.

I'd like to see imdependent placebo test results.

Did you go looking? As I noted, this drug wasn't created to get people to lose weight. Weight loss due to loss of appetite is a side effect. A very monetary one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you walk you are lifting weight, body weight.

Force of gravity is F=mass*acceleration = Newtons = body wight * g = kg*9.8m/s^2.

Even if you are walking slowly you are lifting one foot off the ground and your whole body comes up slightly as you move forward.

If you have a 50 pond pack as you step momentarily your body weight plus pack weifht is on one foot/leg as the loaded knee flexes.

That is why using two walking sticks when carrying a hevy pack takes load of the legs ad puts some of it on your arms.

You burn more calories standing still with a pack than without. Your muscles are costantly flexing to keep you upright.

Analytically it would require working out a work integral across your body for the walking motion. Work = ʃ Eˑdl.

Of course it's more. The question was whether a pound of pack (which has no metabolism) is equal to a pound of body (which does have metabolism.)

And on flat ground I do not find poles take any meaningful portion of my weight and I don't even use them. I like them for going up and I need them to absorb the energy gain of going down or my knees will soon be howling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you go looking? As I noted, this drug wasn't created to get people to lose weight. Weight loss due to loss of appetite is a side effect. A very monetary one.

Yup. Using drugs for their side effects is not uncommon in the medical world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You burn more calories standing still with a pack than without. Your muscles are costantly flexing to keep you upright.

Humans, unlike most primates, can lock their knees, so this is true in other chimpanzee species, but not in humans.

This reduces the extra load, it doesn't eliminate it. You'll tire faster standing with a heavy pack than standing without a pack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You burn more calories standing still with a pack than without. Your muscles are costantly flexing to keep you upright.

Humans, unlike most primates, can lock their knees, so this is true in other chimpanzee species, but not in humans.

This reduces the extra load, it doesn't eliminate it. You'll tire faster standing with a heavy pack than standing without a pack.

Actually gravity works in the opposite direction in Australia due to the coriolis effect.