5 ms·

This is kind of amazing. We actually have the miracle “weight-loss pill” we’ve always dreamed of. I get it, not actually a pill, but the point is there appear

by jmull 2y ago

This is kind of amazing. We actually have the miracle “weight-loss pill” we’ve always dreamed of. I get it, not actually a pill, but the point is there appears to be a straightforward way to attain a healthy weight that will work for a large proportion of people. Some possible drawbacks… affordability - if it’s $1K/mo, it’s actually not feasible for a large proportion of people. maintaining - seems like you probably have to keep taking the drug forever to maintain the benefit. That is, if you stop, the weight comes back. negative long-term consequences? - It’s great to hear about the positive consequences of this, but since it appears you have to take the drug long-term, what are the negative consequences to doing so? Personally, I’m a couple months into a diet to get to a healthy weight (a light-weight form of calorie counting). It’s working (yay), but if I don’t do it just right I end up hungry for significant periods of time. That’s miserable, and if it happens too much I probably can’t maintain the diet. A miracle weight-loss drug sure is looking attractive right now.

paulpauper 2y ago
Yeah. This is what people have been hoping for decades. A safe and effective non-surgical weight loss treatment. This is it.
- 404mm 2y ago
  > safe Have you read the drug label? I actually just picked up my first dose today and I’m still not sure if I want to take it.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> negative long-term consequences? - It’s great to hear about the positive consequences of this, but since it appears you have to take the drug long-term, what are the negative consequences to doing so? The GLP drugs very commonly cause GI issues. It isn’t clear yet if those effects can be permanent but they do remain at least for a while after stopping treatment.
- Nzen 2y ago
  The npr segment I heard yesterday [0] called out nausea and muscle loss among actual users. [0] https://www.northernpublicradio.org/2024-08-19/ozempic-takes-over-the-kentucky-city-of-bowling-green https://www.northernpublicradio.org/2024-08-19/ozempic-takes...
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Yes muscle loss is common due to rapid weight loss, usually without compensation like strength training. The effect of the drug is in reducing appetite so it is literally equivalent to calorie restriction, not some sort of fat targeting drug. But I think the public assumes it will create the “right” weight loss. Unfortunately older drug users won’t be able to regain that muscle mass easily.
ddorian43 2y ago
It is a weight loss drug, but you will lose muscle. And you will still eat bad food. And you still have cravings for bad food.
- skrtskrt 2y ago
  if you have paid attention to any article in the last year, one of the primary functions of these drugs is reducing the cravings.
  - ddorian43 2y ago
    To all food or just bad food? And how does it do that? I saw in this thread that it reduces cravings to fatty food which is bad news.
    - rincebrain 2y ago
      I believe the anecdotes I've seen were about people on this drug finding that they thought about formerly favorite unhealthy foods and viscerally recoiled at the idea of eating them. My speculation is that it's a gut biota change driving the change in cravings, but I'm not sure there's much research on the mechanisms involved yet, since these drugs are very new, comparatively. A very small study apparently suggested it ameliorated some of the numbness to intense flavors that the obese have been shown to have in previous studies, so maybe I'm completely off base.
    - djur 2y ago
      There's a lot of information you can find if you spend some time to do the research before making declarations on the topic, but studies have shown significant reductions in alcohol consumption, for one thing. Anecdotally, multiple people I know who are on GLP-1 agonists have said that they feel much less of a desire to drink and have much less when they do.
- OptionOfT 2y ago
  On the contrary, it stops the cravings. And you're full for longer as it slows down the passage of food in your system. Of course, it is up to the user to 1) exercise and 2) eat healthy.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Or, we could change our lifestyle and stop eating so much of the highly processed foods that make most of us obese in the first place. Again, we're trying to fix the symptom instead of dealing with the root cause -- because we don't want to give up our Mountain Dew and Frito Lay.
- skrtskrt 2y ago
  you would have to fix the entire system of food availability. we are still programmed to pack on and store energy as soon as it's available. it gets harder and hard to constantly make good choices as you go down the income ladder not just due to the food environment but also because people on the whole just cognitively cannot make these decisions optimally all the time when they are tired, stressed, and overworked.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Fixing the system of food availability is exactly what is needed. And I 100% agree that it disproportionately impacts lower income because of healthy food deserts. But it’s a problem of our own making because of large foodstuff corporations that force addictive garbage on everyone (through limited availability and high cost of healthy alternatives and the fact that junk food is literally everywhere and many times the only option). It’s a disaster and yet it’s hardly talked about — instead we look to drugs (which can make $$$) to fix the symptom.
- rincebrain 2y ago
  The problem is that for some people, it's not just "make better choices" - there's various research that shows once you made those poor choices, or had them made for you when younger, some of the marks that leaves on your brain's expectations last. Various people have remarked on how they've tried avoiding large classes of food that might be "unhealthy" and exercised intensely, and nothing changed for them without this. To say nothing of, as the other poster said, how much time+money it can be to avoid, particularly when you've not got much spare income, so the difference might mean not having to skip a meal this week to afford your medication, even if it might be lead-filled or the equivalent that'll harm you over time (and not just directly, in money saved - making your own rounded meals costs a bunch of time, and sometimes upfront costs, and if you're that low on resources, you might not have that time to spare.) I would agree the correct way to mitigate this is to do things like ban HFCS, among other things, and start aggressively researching the harms of anything remotely sweetener or addictive behavior-forming in foods, because if you remove the thing that triggers an excessive "MORE" response in some people, you better believe you're starting whack-a-mole with food companies finding other addictives that secretly cause your toes to fall off in 20 years but taste 5000x as sweet, or something.

by jmull 2y ago

paulpauper 2y ago

Yeah. This is what people have been hoping for decades. A safe and effective non-surgical weight loss treatment. This is it.

404mm 2y ago
> safe Have you read the drug label? I actually just picked up my first dose today and I’m still not sure if I want to take it.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> negative long-term consequences? - It’s great to hear about the positive consequences of this, but since it appears you have to take the drug long-term, what are the negative consequences to doing so? The GLP drugs very commonly cause GI issues. It isn’t clear yet if those effects can be permanent but they do remain at least for a while after stopping treatment.

Nzen 2y ago
The npr segment I heard yesterday [0] called out nausea and muscle loss among actual users. [0] https://www.northernpublicradio.org/2024-08-19/ozempic-takes-over-the-kentucky-city-of-bowling-green https://www.northernpublicradio.org/2024-08-19/ozempic-takes...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Yes muscle loss is common due to rapid weight loss, usually without compensation like strength training. The effect of the drug is in reducing appetite so it is literally equivalent to calorie restriction, not some sort of fat targeting drug. But I think the public assumes it will create the “right” weight loss. Unfortunately older drug users won’t be able to regain that muscle mass easily.

ddorian43 2y ago

It is a weight loss drug, but you will lose muscle. And you will still eat bad food. And you still have cravings for bad food.

skrtskrt 2y ago
if you have paid attention to any article in the last year, one of the primary functions of these drugs is reducing the cravings.
- ddorian43 2y ago
  To all food or just bad food? And how does it do that? I saw in this thread that it reduces cravings to fatty food which is bad news.
  - rincebrain 2y ago
    I believe the anecdotes I've seen were about people on this drug finding that they thought about formerly favorite unhealthy foods and viscerally recoiled at the idea of eating them. My speculation is that it's a gut biota change driving the change in cravings, but I'm not sure there's much research on the mechanisms involved yet, since these drugs are very new, comparatively. A very small study apparently suggested it ameliorated some of the numbness to intense flavors that the obese have been shown to have in previous studies, so maybe I'm completely off base.
  - djur 2y ago
    There's a lot of information you can find if you spend some time to do the research before making declarations on the topic, but studies have shown significant reductions in alcohol consumption, for one thing. Anecdotally, multiple people I know who are on GLP-1 agonists have said that they feel much less of a desire to drink and have much less when they do.
OptionOfT 2y ago
On the contrary, it stops the cravings. And you're full for longer as it slows down the passage of food in your system. Of course, it is up to the user to 1) exercise and 2) eat healthy.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Or, we could change our lifestyle and stop eating so much of the highly processed foods that make most of us obese in the first place. Again, we're trying to fix the symptom instead of dealing with the root cause -- because we don't want to give up our Mountain Dew and Frito Lay.

skrtskrt 2y ago
you would have to fix the entire system of food availability. we are still programmed to pack on and store energy as soon as it's available. it gets harder and hard to constantly make good choices as you go down the income ladder not just due to the food environment but also because people on the whole just cognitively cannot make these decisions optimally all the time when they are tired, stressed, and overworked.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Fixing the system of food availability is exactly what is needed. And I 100% agree that it disproportionately impacts lower income because of healthy food deserts. But it’s a problem of our own making because of large foodstuff corporations that force addictive garbage on everyone (through limited availability and high cost of healthy alternatives and the fact that junk food is literally everywhere and many times the only option). It’s a disaster and yet it’s hardly talked about — instead we look to drugs (which can make $$$) to fix the symptom.
rincebrain 2y ago
The problem is that for some people, it's not just "make better choices" - there's various research that shows once you made those poor choices, or had them made for you when younger, some of the marks that leaves on your brain's expectations last. Various people have remarked on how they've tried avoiding large classes of food that might be "unhealthy" and exercised intensely, and nothing changed for them without this. To say nothing of, as the other poster said, how much time+money it can be to avoid, particularly when you've not got much spare income, so the difference might mean not having to skip a meal this week to afford your medication, even if it might be lead-filled or the equivalent that'll harm you over time (and not just directly, in money saved - making your own rounded meals costs a bunch of time, and sometimes upfront costs, and if you're that low on resources, you might not have that time to spare.) I would agree the correct way to mitigate this is to do things like ban HFCS, among other things, and start aggressively researching the harms of anything remotely sweetener or addictive behavior-forming in foods, because if you remove the thing that triggers an excessive "MORE" response in some people, you better believe you're starting whack-a-mole with food companies finding other addictives that secretly cause your toes to fall off in 20 years but taste 5000x as sweet, or something.