
I Prescribed a GLP-1. Now What?
We've got another really important one today. We're going to discuss the new joint recommendations from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the American Society for Nutrition, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the Obesity Society around nutrition and exercise for people prescribed GLP-1 therapy for obesity. This is a critically important area, as GLP-1 receptor agonists and the GLP-1/GIP dual agonist have become one of the most common medicines that we prescribe. These medicines are powerful and can lead to 15% to 22% weight loss with semaglutide and tirzepatide, respectively. A level of weight loss that I'll venture to say we did not imagine could have been possible just a few years ago.
But as Spider-Man once famously said, 'With great power comes great responsibility.' We need to make sure we're spending the time that it takes to give proper advice to patients about nutrition and exercise if we want our patients to achieve the optimal health outcomes that they can get from this class of medicines. GLP-1 receptor agonists and the GLP-1/GIP dual agonist have absolutely changed the landscape for treating overweight and obesity but also come with powerful side effects, both short- and long-term.
On the good side, these medicines are clearly metabolically healthy. They lead to a decrease in LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, improvement in HDL cholesterol, decreased blood pressure and blood sugar, as well as decreased vascular events in those with existent ASCVD and even improvement in arthritis pain, resolution of obstructive sleep apnea (in half of the people with OSA and obesity that were studied in an important study), and improvement in fibrosis in MASH. Nonetheless, the GLP-1s need to be used carefully and our advice is critically important if the promise of these medicines is to be fulfilled.
Prior to starting weight-loss medicines, a comprehensive weight history should be taken, including asking about identifiable influences to gaining weight. We also need to look for evidence of eating disorders, which would affect the decision of whether to start an appetite-suppressing medicine, as well as influence the way that we're going to monitor people once they're on it. In addition, we should ask about mood disorders because weight loss can either exacerbate or improve depression. Finally, ask about risk of sarcopenia and assess for risk of sarcopenia, which is more common with increasing age, chronic illness, and sedentary lifestyles.
Let me now discuss symptomatic side effects. First, after starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist, about a third of people during the first 1-3 months will have some degree of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation, which are usually described as mild to moderate in degree. In order to mitigate those GI side effects, we can remind people of a few tricks.
Eat small meals frequently rather than just one or two large meals a day. Avoid greasy or fatty foods. Practice mindful eating — always has been important, still is. Things like eating slowly and making sure to stop eating when you begin to feel full.
In addition, it's important to remind people to consciously stay hydrated because along with suppression of appetite, there can be alterations in thirst mechanism, which is particularly important this time of year. For people who are experiencing a lot of GI side effects, a slower dose titration can be helpful. If nausea is a challenging issue, antinausea medicines, such as prochlorperazine or ondansetron, can be prescribed to help people get through the first few months. If constipation is an issue, increasing fluids and fiber can be encouraged and medications such as polyethylene glycol can be used.
Let's move on, now, to potential for nutritional deficiencies. When you decrease the amount you eat substantially, you can decrease the amount of vitamins and minerals that you get. Advise patients to eat nutrient-dense, minimally processed foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, lean proteins, nuts, and seeds. Supplementation can be considered for at-risk nutrients, such as vitamin D, calcium, and B 12 — or just recommend a multivitamin with minerals.
Preservation of muscle and bone is critical. Rapid weight loss can lead to loss of both fat and lean body mass (that is, muscle mass). About a quarter of all the weight that is lost on GLP-1s comes from muscle. It is not the medicines, though, that caused the loss of muscle. It's the rapid weight loss. That same thing happens with a very low-calorie diet, bariatric surgery, or medications. To mitigate the loss of lean body mass, two things are important. The first thing is nutrition. The second thing is exercise.
When you're in a calorie deficit, your body needs to get sufficient amino acids to preserve and build muscle mass. While the recommended daily allowance for protein in adults is 0.8 g/kg/d, when someone is at a significant calorie deficit, a higher intake of protein is recommended. There's not clarity in the literature as to the correct amount of protein. Some recommendations actually go up to 1.2-1.6 g/kg/d during active weight reduction. Some experts recommend protein needs to be calculated based on total weight; others recommend based on lean body weight. There's a lack of clarity here.
As a reasonable compromise to these varied recommendations, I usually recommend that patients take in about 0.4-0.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight during weight loss. This means that a roughly 200-pound individual should aim to get about 70 or 80 grams of protein daily. Don't fret over the exact amount, but just make sure that you're not way undershooting the right amount.
The reality here is that this often requires planning in order to achieve adequate protein intake. I usually recommend to patients that they can try a protein shake in the morning to help them achieve their protein goals. The advisory emphasizes that lower-volume nutrient-dense protein foods can be encouraged. Things like fish, eggs, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, nuts and seeds, chicken. I want to emphasize that protein alone, though, is not going to be enough to help preserve muscle mass. You need to do resistance exercises, as well.
As for bone health, the relationship between GLP-1 use and bone density is complex and unclear. There's some evidence that GLP-1s may actually protect bone density, while it is clear, though, that rapid weight loss leads to a loss of bone density. What is clear is that exercise is critical for the preservation of both lean body mass — meaning muscle — and bone density.
So, putting it all together: When GLP-1s or dual agonists are prescribed, in order to have optimal outcomes, they should be prescribed with an exercise program, aiming for strength training at least three times weekly, plus at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise weekly, as well, to preserve muscle and bone mass.
This is not easy. I'm not saying it is. I am saying it's important. A dietitian can help with nutrition, and a personal trainer or YouTube videos are also resources for learning how to do strength training — that is, resistance exercises.
Finally, for a variety of reasons, people often stop taking GLP-1s. It's clear that most people will put weight back on. Maybe not everyone and maybe not all of the weight — that's going to depend on how you approach these lifestyle issues. When you gain weight back, unless you're exercising you will not gain back muscle that has been lost. And muscle is important for health. It's important to utilize the time on the medications to reinforce healthy habits, healthy food choices, and regular exercise, because doing so increases the likelihood of success in keeping at least some of the weight off and diminishes the loss of bone and muscle over time.
These are powerful medicines. And to make the best use of them, and for patients to achieve the best outcomes, requires input from us, as clinicians, for a significant commitment on the part of patients to do the work, as long as we provide the knowledge in order to achieve those outcomes.
I'm interested in your thoughts. For Medscape, I'm Dr Neil Skolnik.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. pulls funding for mRNA vaccines as scientists pursue breakthrough treatments for HIV, cancer, the flu and more
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday that the federal government is canceling nearly $500 million in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines, a revolutionary new technology that was first put into widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a video explaining the decision posted to social media, Kennedy said that the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that 'mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' for respiratory viruses like COVID-19. He also claimed that the pandemic showed 'mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that affect the upper respiratory tract.' That statement runs counter to a wide body of research finding that COVID vaccines saved millions — if not tens of millions — of lives over the course of the pandemic. A total of 22 projects funded by a government agency called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will be affected by the funding freeze, according to the department. A few projects that are in their final stages will be allowed to continue, but 'no new mRNA-based projects will be initiated.' 'This isn't just about vaccines. It's about whether we'll be ready when the next crisis hits. Cutting mRNA development now puts every American at greater risk,' Rick Bright, who directed BARDA in the early stages of the pandemic before being reassigned by the Trump administration, told NBC News. The decision doesn't mean that research into mRNA vaccines will stop entirely, but it does cut off a major source of funding that helped the vaccines become a reality in the first place. By the time the pandemic had started, the government had already given an estimated $337 million in grants for research into mRNA vaccines. That support over the course of decades put scientists in a position to make COVID vaccines available to the public at a record-shattering pace of less than a year. How do mRNA vaccines work? The 'm' in mRNA stands for messenger. In the most basic terms, it's a piece of genetic code that tells our cells what to do. Scientists have discovered how to harness this process to make vaccine development much faster and less expensive. Traditional vaccines typically use a dead or weakened version of a virus to stimulate an immune response that effectively teaches the body how to combat the real version if it ever encounters it. These types of vaccines can take a long time to develop because they rely on the slow, often complicated process of cultivating and modifying the actual virus into a safe and effective form. Using mRNA is much faster because the crucial ingredients can be created and customized in a lab. It took Moderna just two days to produce its mRNA vaccine for COVID in January 2020, before most people had ever even heard of the virus. The vaccines carry a snippet of mRNA that instructs the body to produce a small portion of a virus, usually a protein on its outer membrane, which is enough to trigger the same type of immune response that is prompted by traditional vaccines. The quicker process also means that existing mRNA vaccines can be modified more rapidly when viruses evolve. Despite Kennedy's claims, mRNA-based COVID vaccines have been found to be just as effective at preventing severe infections and death as vaccines made using other methods. After the vaccines became widely available, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die of COVID than those who were fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Two researchers who helped achieve early breakthroughs in mRNA vaccines were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2023. Applications beyond COVID The introduction of COVID vaccines didn't just mark a turning point in the deadliest pandemic in modern history. It also provided evidence of mRNA's potential to protect people from a whole range of diseases. Just last week, researchers released promising results from early trials of new mRNA-based vaccines for HIV, a huge breakthrough in a pursuit that has confounded scientists for more than 40 years. There have been tremendous strides made in drugs that protect people from catching the virus or keep them healthy if they do contract it, but the limitations of those treatments still mean that more than 600,000 people are dying every year of AIDS — mostly in the developing world. Experts see a potential vaccine as a key to finally conquering the virus. There is also optimism that mRNA could be an effective tool in combating the seasonal flu. Current flu vaccines vary widely in effectiveness from year to year, and are only about 60% effective at their best, because it can be hard for experts to predict which strain of the virus will be more dominant in any given flu season. Several pharmaceutical companies are developing mRNA flu vaccines that could become a powerful tool for fighting influenza because of how quickly they can be adapted to match the nature of the virus at any given time. That speed could be especially important if a novel flu strain, like bird flu, causes a severe outbreak. There is even some promise that mRNA might one day be used to make a universal flu vaccine that covers all strains. The holy grail for mRNA is cancer. Though vaccines are typically used to prevent disease, there are several vaccines in development that show 'real hope' of being an effective treatment for people with cancer. Those include 'individualized' vaccines that are custom-made for each patient's specific needs. An mRNA vaccine for RSV is already available to certain high-risk adults. Other possible applications include the Zika virus and cytomegalovirus, an infection that is particularly dangerous for babies and people with compromised immune systems. Though experts say the rollback of U.S. government funding is a setback for these projects, some also expressed optimism that mRNA breakthroughs will continue to come even without America's support. 'Will this dent what's going on in the U.S.? Unquestionably,' Kate Bingham, who led the United Kingdom's COVID vaccine task force, told the Guardian. 'Does that mean it's negative for the world? Not necessarily.' Solve the daily Crossword


American Military News
13 minutes ago
- American Military News
3 Americans evacuated in Antarctica by New Zealand Air Force
The Royal New Zealand Air Force conducted a roughly 20-hour medical evacuation in 'extreme conditions' for three Americans at the McMurdo Station in Antarctica on Tuesday. In a Wednesday press release, the Royal New Zealand Air Force confirmed that the medical evacuation operation was requested by the U.S. National Science Foundation after three staff members located at the McMurdo Station were not able to receive the medical treatment they required in Antarctica. The press release noted that one of the staff members needed 'urgent medical care.' Air Component Commander Air Commodore Andy Scott explained that the mid-winter evacuation flight to Antarctica is one of the most challenging operations the Royal New Zealand Air Force crews perform due to Antarctica's cold temperatures, changing weather conditions, and ice landings in the dark. 'The crew can only attempt the flight after detailed analysis of the weather and airfield state,' Scott stated. 'The United States Antarctic Program Winter Team must physically create the runway before we can depart by ensuring the ice is groomed and suitable for landing. 'Although they determine it is safe, it's still an extremely challenging environment to fly in on Night Vision Goggles due to the extreme weather conditions, which are highly changeable at this time of year and makes accurate forecasting a challenge,' Scott added. 'This, coupled with there being no airfields available to divert to once the aircraft is past a certain point south adds to the risk, so these missions are not taken lightly.' READ MORE: Video: Coast Guard evacuates elderly man who had 'multiple strokes' 300 miles from shore According to Wednesday's press release, the evacuation team included New Zealand Defence Force medical personnel and a doctor to provide care for the three American patients on the return flight to Christchurch. The press release noted that the New Zealand crew departed on Tuesday afternoon and continued the operation throughout the night. The full evacuation took roughly 19.5 hours. Fox News reported that in addition to the other challenges faced by the evacuation team, the temperature at McMurdo Station fell to -11 degrees Fahrenheit during the evacuation operation. 'This mission wasn't just difficult; it was one of the most technically demanding operations an aircrew can face. In extreme conditions, with little margin for error, the RNZAF executed this mid-winter Antarctic medevac flawlessly,' Melissa Sweeney, the U.S. Chargé d'Affaires to New Zealand, said. 'We are so very grateful. Our Kiwi partners didn't hesitate to undertake this mission in one of the most unforgiving environments on Earth. Their skill and readiness are truly world-class,' Sweeney added. 'Only the best crews can pull off something like this and the RNZAF proved, again, that they're among the very best. This isn't luck, its professionalism, planning, and a level of capability that few can match.'


Fast Company
13 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Sources reveal the Trump administration's plans for cutting U.S. drug prices
The Trump administration has been talking to drugmakers about ways to raise prices of medicines in Europe and elsewhere in order to cut drug costs in the United States, according to a White House official and three pharmaceutical industry sources. U.S. officials told drug companies it would support their international negotiations with governments if they adopt 'most favored nation' pricing under which U.S. drug costs match the lower rates offered to other wealthy countries, the White House official said. The U.S. is currently negotiating bilateral trade deals and setting tariff rates on the sector. The Trump administration has asked some companies for ideas on raising prices abroad, two of the sources said, describing multiple meetings over several months aimed at lowering U.S. prices without triggering cuts to research and development spending drugmakers insist would result. The White House official called the effort collaborative, saying both sides were seeking advice from each other. The U.S. pays more for prescription drugs than any other country, often nearly three times as much as other developed nations. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to narrow this gap to stop Americans from being 'ripped off.' The previously unreported discussions reflect the challenges Trump faces to achieve that goal, and are the backdrop to the letters he sent last week to CEOs of 17 major drugmakers, urging them to cut U.S. prices to match those paid overseas. Unlike in the U.S., where market forces determine drug prices, European governments typically negotiate directly with companies to set prices for their national healthcare systems. Anna Kaltenboeck, a health economist at Verdant Research, said European nations have leverage to drive pricing and are sometimes willing to walk away from purchasing medicines they deem too expensive. Drugmakers generate most of their sales in the U.S. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — the industry's main lobby group — has always argued that cutting U.S. prices would stifle innovation by lowering R&D spending. PhRMA declined to comment on the private meetings. Kaltenboeck said past studies had shown that drugmakers made enough money in the U.S. to more than fund their entire global R&D spends. 'Prices can come down in the United States without being increased in other countries, and we can still get innovation,' she said. TOP PRIORITY Despite the Trump administration's tariff threats and pressure to move more manufacturing to the U.S., the push to raise European drug prices is its top priority in discussions with industry, according to a senior executive at a European drugmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity about the confidential meetings. 'This is the key conversation right now with PhRMA and every company getting that message from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point that we are already executing on it,' the executive said, referring to the White House address. The company had already met with European governments on the issue, the executive added. An E.U. Commission spokesperson said it is in regular contact with the pharma industry and pointed to an agreement with the U.S. that should it impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals, they would be capped at 15%. When asked how the administration would support international drug price negotiations, the White House official referred Reuters to Trump's most favored nation executive order from May. That order directed trade officials to pursue trade and legal action against countries keeping drug prices below fair market value. In last week's letters, Trump complained that since the May executive order, most industry proposals had simply shifted blame for high prices or requested policy changes that would result in billions in industry handouts. A second source, a pharmaceutical executive who was not authorized to speak on the matter, said the Trump administration has been continually meeting with representatives of his company and had discussed strategies for raising drug prices internationally. 'There's a big push from the administration to drive up prices outside the U.S.,' the executive said. The executive said the Trump administration had been looking at using trade talks with the UK and EU as leverage, and considered pressuring countries to spend a higher percentage of GDP on new medicines or offering tariff breaks in exchange for higher drug spending. It was understood that the UK deal specifically aims to get the country to ramp up investment in branded medicines over time, the executive said. A spokesperson for the UK government said it would continue to work closely with the U.S. and its own pharmaceutical industry to understand the possible impact of any changes to drug pricing, without commenting on the trade talks. In April, over 30 industry CEOs including those from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Novo Nordisk signed a letter to European Union President Ursula von der Leyen saying Europe needed to rethink its pricing policies. 'It's going to be very difficult for a country that already has the ability to control what it spends to go in the other direction,' Kaltenboeck said, 'and it doesn't make much sense for them politically.'