6 ms·

I'm going to be skeptical of putting millions of on a new drug, permanently, to mask some underlying issue in society. Is there any evidence that people can be

by VS1999 2y ago

I'm going to be skeptical of putting millions of on a new drug, permanently, to mask some underlying issue in society. Is there any evidence that people can be weaned off this after losing weight? Or is it expected to be permanent? This was not an issue in the past and whatever the root cause is, it's never going to be treated if we can just drug everyone into acting like they used to.

jstummbillig 2y ago
You fix the immediate problems where you can. You buy time. You find better solutions down the line. When a person is dead, you can't find a better solution. It's "masking" the issue as much as chemotherapy is "masking" the issue. People are dying. We have tried appeals to salads and quick walks. Unless you got anything up your sleeve, I recommend we stick to the ol' "keep more people alive with the best stuff we currently got" plan, until information pops up, that makes this look like the morally worse option. But in that regard preventing death is fairly hard to beat as a baseline.
- squigz 2y ago
  > We have tried appeals to salads and quick walks. This bit made me laugh, as if public health initiatives have been taken remotely seriously by the past few decades. It seems quite a jump to go from "maybe try a a salad?" to putting millions of people on medication. Did that happen with tobacco? Alcohol?
  - jstummbillig 2y ago
    > It seems quite a jump to go from "maybe try a a salad?" to putting millions of people on medication. It's a hyperbole, meaning to say: The problem is so frustratingly silly and solution is so obvious and simple — just eat a little less, move a little more — that I understand how hard it is to accept that it might just be the completely wrong approach. What makes it fairly obvious to me is that despite clear and long standing conflicting beauty ideals, the massive societal advantages beauty affords, and an industry build around weight loss (not even drugs, stuff like Weight Watchers), people still struggle. If you have good insight into why informing about tobacco worked to the degree it did (although lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer death) other than claiming vague un-seriousness, I am all ears. Otherwise I have a hard time understanding this as an information problem.
    - squigz 2y ago
      > If you have good insight into why informing about tobacco worked to the degree it did My point here was that we seemed to approach tobacco/alcohol a bit more methodically - taxes (i.e., increasing costs for cigarettes), regulations (i.e., where alcohol can be sold), education (i.e., scary cigarette packaging) - whereas we seem to be saying, "Well, we did very little and got no results, so let's go nuclear!" when it comes to obesity It seems to me that, if obesity is so harmful to society, places like McDonalds and other (provably) unhealthy food shouldn't be as cheap or as easy to get as it is. > The problem is so frustratingly silly and solution is so obvious and simple — just eat a little less, move a little more — that I understand how hard it is to accept that it might just be the completely wrong approach. It certainly is frustrating, and I feel that more than I probably should. Probably something to reflect on.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    Millions of people have used medication to quit tobacco and alcohol.
idle_zealot 2y ago
Are you asking what the root cause of obesity is? It's eating too much and not exercising enough. It's not some mystery. Or is the question about why people behave in this self-destructive way? People on average are bad at impulse control. Snack companies take advantage. People feel varying levels of discomfort vs exhilaration when exercising. For some it ultimately feels nice, for some it is unpleasant. Of those for whom it is unpleasant only some have the forethought and leeway to establish and maintain a healthy lifestyle. Of those for whom it is pleasant some face time or schedueling contraints that make an active lifestyle difficult. If there's a root cause to be fixed its that the human body responds poorly to acting on its impulses in our current built environment. You can solve that by altering the environment, the body, or the impulses. Ozempic seems to work by altering the impulses.
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  >You can solve that by altering the environment, the body, or the impulses. Incorrect. You patch that by altering the environment OR the body OR or the impulses. To fix that you need to alter all 3
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > To fix that you need to alter all 3 We have tons of evidence to the contrary in multiple disciplines. Like, have you never made a conscious dietary change?
    - Almondsetat 2y ago
      Most dietary changes fail, I don't think that's a good example actually. In any case, yes I have, but the only time it has worked was when I changed my environment (stopped slouching at home bored with a full pantry) and my impulses (filled my days with activities so that boredom hunger wouldn't strike). Only changing one would make me last a couple of weeks max
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
objektif 2y ago
I agree with you that this does not address the underlying issue. But root cause you speak of may not really be that simple to fix. Is the root cause people spend much more time in their offices working and hence are more inactive? Is it the crappy American diet? For example, many people around me gained weight after they became parents. Especially women after birth. It is just insanely difficult to work hard in an office job, take care of young kids and exercise etc all at the same time. As you age things get very difficult as well. I eat significantly less than what I used to just few years ago but still have 5-10lbs extra.

by VS1999 2y ago

jstummbillig 2y ago

You fix the immediate problems where you can. You buy time. You find better solutions down the line. When a person is dead, you can't find a better solution. It's "masking" the issue as much as chemotherapy is "masking" the issue. People are dying. We have tried appeals to salads and quick walks. Unless you got anything up your sleeve, I recommend we stick to the ol' "keep more people alive with the best stuff we currently got" plan, until information pops up, that makes this look like the morally worse option. But in that regard preventing death is fairly hard to beat as a baseline.

squigz 2y ago
> We have tried appeals to salads and quick walks. This bit made me laugh, as if public health initiatives have been taken remotely seriously by the past few decades. It seems quite a jump to go from "maybe try a a salad?" to putting millions of people on medication. Did that happen with tobacco? Alcohol?
- jstummbillig 2y ago
  > It seems quite a jump to go from "maybe try a a salad?" to putting millions of people on medication. It's a hyperbole, meaning to say: The problem is so frustratingly silly and solution is so obvious and simple — just eat a little less, move a little more — that I understand how hard it is to accept that it might just be the completely wrong approach. What makes it fairly obvious to me is that despite clear and long standing conflicting beauty ideals, the massive societal advantages beauty affords, and an industry build around weight loss (not even drugs, stuff like Weight Watchers), people still struggle. If you have good insight into why informing about tobacco worked to the degree it did (although lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer death) other than claiming vague un-seriousness, I am all ears. Otherwise I have a hard time understanding this as an information problem.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > If you have good insight into why informing about tobacco worked to the degree it did My point here was that we seemed to approach tobacco/alcohol a bit more methodically - taxes (i.e., increasing costs for cigarettes), regulations (i.e., where alcohol can be sold), education (i.e., scary cigarette packaging) - whereas we seem to be saying, "Well, we did very little and got no results, so let's go nuclear!" when it comes to obesity It seems to me that, if obesity is so harmful to society, places like McDonalds and other (provably) unhealthy food shouldn't be as cheap or as easy to get as it is. > The problem is so frustratingly silly and solution is so obvious and simple — just eat a little less, move a little more — that I understand how hard it is to accept that it might just be the completely wrong approach. It certainly is frustrating, and I feel that more than I probably should. Probably something to reflect on.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Millions of people have used medication to quit tobacco and alcohol.

idle_zealot 2y ago

Are you asking what the root cause of obesity is? It's eating too much and not exercising enough. It's not some mystery. Or is the question about why people behave in this self-destructive way? People on average are bad at impulse control. Snack companies take advantage. People feel varying levels of discomfort vs exhilaration when exercising. For some it ultimately feels nice, for some it is unpleasant. Of those for whom it is unpleasant only some have the forethought and leeway to establish and maintain a healthy lifestyle. Of those for whom it is pleasant some face time or schedueling contraints that make an active lifestyle difficult. If there's a root cause to be fixed its that the human body responds poorly to acting on its impulses in our current built environment. You can solve that by altering the environment, the body, or the impulses. Ozempic seems to work by altering the impulses.

Almondsetat 2y ago
>You can solve that by altering the environment, the body, or the impulses. Incorrect. You patch that by altering the environment OR the body OR or the impulses. To fix that you need to alter all 3
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > To fix that you need to alter all 3 We have tons of evidence to the contrary in multiple disciplines. Like, have you never made a conscious dietary change?
  - Almondsetat 2y ago
    Most dietary changes fail, I don't think that's a good example actually. In any case, yes I have, but the only time it has worked was when I changed my environment (stopped slouching at home bored with a full pantry) and my impulses (filled my days with activities so that boredom hunger wouldn't strike). Only changing one would make me last a couple of weeks max
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

objektif 2y ago

I agree with you that this does not address the underlying issue. But root cause you speak of may not really be that simple to fix. Is the root cause people spend much more time in their offices working and hence are more inactive? Is it the crappy American diet? For example, many people around me gained weight after they became parents. Especially women after birth. It is just insanely difficult to work hard in an office job, take care of young kids and exercise etc all at the same time. As you age things get very difficult as well. I eat significantly less than what I used to just few years ago but still have 5-10lbs extra.