prbl2 · HackerTrans

vor 2 Jahrendiscuss

This is an interesting finding. But, a reminder that this is epidemiological data. It is nearly impossible to "adjust" for all confounding variables in epidemiological studies. For example, you may expect a health user-bias among people who use solariums, sunlamps, or have high vitamin-D levels, and health at baseline might be effected by random fluctuations not accounting for all variance. I would look for evidence of randomized trials before taking this as the truth.

prbl2

vor 2 Jahrendiscuss

A few things to consider:

1. If other weight loss methods also have significant impacts on the skin, it seems plausible that a shared mechanism could be the most parsimonious explanation. Therefore, if this effect exists, it might be due to weight loss itself rather than specifically due to Ozempic. The article cites a study supporting the fact that dramatic weight loss has negative impacts on skin health.

2. GLP-1 agonists modify appetite, which could lead people to consume less satiating foods (e.g., protein). This might negatively affect both lean muscle and skin health. There is data supporting collagen supplementation for skin health, as collagen likely raises serum amino acids. This would have the opposite effect on skin health compared to a lower intake of protein.

3. The observations made by plastic surgeons might be influenced by healthy user bias. Ozempic is an expensive medication, and insurance coverage is generally granted to those who are already quite unhealthy. To make a fair comparison, these patients should be compared to individuals with similar health characteristics.

It's also worth adopting an engineering mindset and considering the trade-offs involved. For someone who is extremely metabolically unhealthy, the benefits of weight loss might outweigh potential negative effects on the skin in terms of long-term health.

comments