58 ms·

How long til we're all on Ozempic?

• WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
  Statins are regularly given to people with high cholesterol. I would bet that most older people take or qualify to take a statin. If it happens with statins, therefore, it's not out of the realm to think that most people will eventually be prescribed GLP-1 to reduce weight which will improve overall health. It makes sense.
  • zdragnar 2y ago
    Statins have gone through several prescribing guideline revisions in the last 10-20 years. Many people were incorrectly prescribed them and some have suffered for it. Likewise, there can be serious complications when taking GLP-1 agonists and the like. Since they need to be taken in perpetuity (many gain all weight lost upon stopping use) they should be reserved for only people who have exhausted all other opportunities. Most people over 65 should not be on statins. Most people should not be taking GPL-1 agonists.
    • throwaway63467 2y ago
      I’m just back from the US and watching some TV there in the hotel it seems very much like they’re pushing it into the mainstream, they literally have a commercial where “fat” people congregate in the street to march together picking up Ozempic… So I totally assume it will be widespread in a few years unless they discover some serious side effects.
      • zdragnar 2y ago
        Meh, you see commercials for all kinds of medicines in the US. There's more being produced than your average general practitioner can keep up with, so the manufacturers appeal directly to consumers. Given how ineffective it is once you stop, I'm personally expecting it to become a relatively short lived fad. Insurance companies won't cover it if it truly doesn't improve health outcomes long term (throwing money down the toilet) and people will learn to not pay out of pocket for it. There's a reason insurance companies are loath to cover it for obesity now without prior authorization, which usually requires you seeing a specialist who has ruled out the usual suspects (nutrition and exercise changes).
    • sph 2y ago
      Pretty much no one should be taking statins. The side effects are well studied, while the benefits are dubious at best. For example: high cholesterol levels is actually positively correlated with longevity, believe it or not. If you consume a diet low in sugars, thus routinely burning fat when fasted, you will have "high" cholesterol in blood. How do you think fats are moved to cells in need? Through the blood, of course. I'd go so far as to say that statins are pretty much a scam, that fixes a useless and quite complex metric such as cholesterol levels. Given that cholesterol levels are a diagnostic easily accessible to GPs, they prescribe statins to see this figure go lower, even if it doesn't make the person any healthier. Incidentally it's similar to taking GLP-1 agonists instead of learning to have a healthier relationship with food.
  • m0llusk 2y ago
    Statins are a good comparison because most end their use after one or two years because of the side effects.
• IncreasePosts 2y ago
  My biggest fear is either there will be long term negative consequences to Ozempic et al, and a huge swath of the population will be dealing with issues 30 years form now - OR - there will be some long term positive consequence to using Ozempic et al, and I'm not getting any of the benefits because I'm not overweight.
  • sss111 2y ago
    There were several side effects related to pancreatic cancer associated with the precursors to GLP-1 drugs. The same companies promoting GLP-1s were responsible for driving up insulin prices. So I'm hedging my bets. There's a really cool Modern MBA video [1] on this topic btw :) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUoZVke_30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUoZVke_30
    • cyberax 2y ago
      > There were several side effects related to pancreatic cancer In mice.
      • copperx 2y ago
        Did the drug help pancreatic cancer?
      • minifridge 2y ago
        If something causes cancer in mice, the curent consensus is that it is deemed unsafe for humans.
        • cyberax 2y ago
          Not really. Mice are naturally genetically pre-disposed to cancer. So in general, if something _doesn't_ cause cancer in mice, then it's probably safe for humans. The reverse is not necessarily true. Also, GLP-1 was associated with thyroid, not pancreatic cancer.
          • deleted 2y ago
• rqtwteye 2y ago
  It's a pretty sad thought that everybody will be on a drug that keeps weight in check while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet. Weight is certainly an important factor but there is more to a healthy life.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • habitue 2y ago
    Seems like just an orthogonal problem? If calorie input is solved, now all the moralizing and shaming can be about nutrition instead
    • mock-possum 2y ago
      And make no mistake we will find something new to moralize and shame about because that’s what we do
  • asib 2y ago
    Sure, but the "unhealthy but not excessively caloric" diet is not a problem ozempic attempts to address. As far as I understand, it simply limits your appetite. Potentially one can go on ozempic, lose weight, and still end up eating unhealthily, because the resulting diet is made up of nutritionally poor foods.
    • MBCook 2y ago
      No, but if it helps avoid the discussion because the very visible side effect is lessened, then in some ways things are worse. No squeaky wheel. I’m glad it’s available for those who need it. But I agree with GP that there is another discussion we need to be having too we’ve avoided for far far too long.
      • Blackthorn 2y ago
        "visible side effect", dude, modern food is fortified to the hilt. If you're overeating on calories it's tough to have a deficiency in most places!
• jaredwiener 2y ago
  FWIW, I was prescribed a GLP-1, but my insurance will not cover it. It's incredibly expensive out of pocket.
  • gadflyinyoureye 2y ago
    Only in the US. Other countries are like 90% less expensive. However, Medicare might try to get better deal since the next round of deal making can include it since the drug is 7 years old. https://slate.com/technology/2023/07/ozempic-costs-a-lot-it-doesnt-have-to.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/07/ozempic-costs-a-lot-it-...
  • hombre_fatal 2y ago
    What about compounding pharmacies like Hims.com? It's $400/mo month to month but $200/mo if you pay a year upfront.
    • rootusrootus 2y ago
      $400/mo will get you tirzepatide (zepbound), if you're okay with semaglutide (ozempic) it'll probably be about half that. Although tirzepatide just got knocked off the shortage list last week so it could become harder to get in compounded form.
• gandalfian 2y ago
  Seven years, December 2031. That's when the patent expires, the kinks and side effects will have been found/ironed out and it becomes a cheap plentiful generic. I'm healthy enough to wait.
• apsec112 2y ago
  This compares Ozempic with past drugs, but sales of past drugs are almost always limited by demand. I'm not sure there's much to learn here for a drug that is limited by supply. Also, this part is silly: "The announced investments across both companies total $32 billion. GLP-1s were 71% of Novo’s revenue in 2023, 16% of Lilly’s in 2023, and 26% of Lilly’s in 2024Q1. If these sales are proportional to the manufacturing capacity used to create those drugs, then about 40% of Novo and Lilly’s combined estimate of $45 billion in gross PP&E is for GLP-1s, for a total of $18 billion; $25 billion would then mean a 140% increase in GLP-1-relevant PP&E." Manufacturing investment is not proportional to sales, because there's a fixed cost to making a certain drug regardless of how much you sell. If a rare-disease drug will have a few thousand patients ever - not uncommon! - you still need to figure out a synthesis path for that particular drug, run QC tests on the production line, get regulatory approval, etc. Economies of scale matter a lot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects).
  • cubefox 2y ago
    And apparently the pure manufacturing cost for Ozempic is relatively low: > the active drug in Ozempic can be produced for about 29 cents for a month’s supply, or 7.2 cents for a typical weekly dose, the research found. It’s not cheap to make — semaglutide costs over $70,000 per kilogram. But only a tiny quantity of the drug is used in each weekly dose. > https://fortune.com/europe/2024/03/28/ozempic-maker-novo-nordisk-facing-pressure-as-study-finds-1000-appetite-suppressant-can-be-made-for-just-5/ https://fortune.com/europe/2024/03/28/ozempic-maker-novo-nor... I think this makes it likely that strongly ramping up the supply is not a major problem.
    • rory 2y ago
      By chance I just talked to someone with deeper knowledge on this and they said the current constraint is actually ramping up supply of the delivery mechanism, not the drug. I have zero expertise on this, but would be curious if anyone knows what's special about Ozempic delivery that can't be served by a commodity syringe.
• fredgrott 2y ago
  for those that do not know there is a herb that targets GLP-1...its called Berberine And yes its over the counter....I currently take one dose per day at 1200mg
  • aleksiy123 2y ago
    How effective is it?
  • wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Source? https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking/berberine-dont-swallow-hype-or-pill https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking/... (2023) disagrees with you: > Neither is berberine any version of Ozempic, which is an analogue of glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1), a natural hormone that regulates blood sugar and helps people feel full. Berberine has nothing to do with GLP-1. > Perhaps the most interesting laboratory finding, given the rising global tide of type 2 diabetes, is the control that berberine may exert over blood sugar. But there is a problem. Berberine is virtually insoluble in water and has low intestinal absorption which means it has poor bioavailability. […] Because of berberine’s poor bioavailability, supplements on the market are likely to be useless. However, some derivative of berberine, may yet make it to the physician’s prescription pad. But it won’t be for weight loss.
    • zonkerdonker 2y ago
      I was able to find this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006295215003822#:~:text=The%20present%20results%20demonstrated%20that,taste%20substance%20obtain%20hypoglycemic%20effect https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00062.... Apparently most of the effect is due to activation of the "bitter taste reception pathways" in the gut. So even though it has very low bioavailibility, it can still stimulate GLP-1 secretion just simply due to its incredible bitterness
      • rootusrootus 2y ago
        Does it only stimulate GLP-1 in the gut, though? As I understand it, most of the positive effects of GLP-1 agonists are the effect they have on the brain's GLP-1 system, not the guts.
• rootusrootus 2y ago
  I'd think it more likely that it'll be one of the next generation drugs, but I do agree with the premise that it will be really common. A few weeks ago I started a low dose of tirzepatide (aka Mounjaro, aka Zepbound) and the side effects are interesting. The biggest negative, which just takes adjustment, is drastically lower stomach capacity. Used to be that two eggs and two pieces of toast was breakfast. Now I better skip at least one of those pieces of toast or I'm going to feel overfull and might get reflux as punishment. But there are some unexpected positives. Obviously I am eating less. I have to log food not to keep it in check, but to make sure I'm eating enough and with the right nutrients. There's another possible negative here -- you get a lot of hydration from food, so if you start eating less you should carefully monitor your fluid intake to allow for that. But I'm also more focused. Not nearly as distracted. I'm getting a lot of things done which I used to just procrastinate on until years had passed in some cases. Man, the garage is going to be clean and superbly organized in a few weeks. And my emotions are quieter. Not just the food noise, that was expected, but I feel more relaxed. That's not what I expected, and I'm pleasantly surprised. As an aside, what makes this all really noticeable is that it's a once-a-week injection, and the peaks and valleys are very obvious. Saturday is injection day, but Sunday is where it really becomes quite noticeable that I took it. Monday-Wednesday is cruising altitude and the effects are good but not over the top. Thursday I can feel it tapering, and today ... well, I'm looking forward to tomorrow's injection. I might switch to a twice-a-week split dose at some point to ease the peaks and valleys. Edit: Before someone asks, yes I have considered there may be long term effects. This is a risk, which I've decided I'm okay with at my age. Nobody gets to live forever anyway, and I was going to end up in an early grave via another route if I didn't do this. "Just eat less and exercise more" is trite. If it were that easy, we'd all be in fantastic shape. I do hope to taper off at some point if I can figure out an alternate strategy for staying lighter. Though I'll miss some of the positive side-effects.
  • jeffbee 2y ago
    > Man, the garage is going to be clean and superbly organized in a few weeks.' Manic behaviors also associated with older, popular diet drugs like meth.
• setgree 2y ago
  There's some evidence that Ozempic improves general impulse control, e.g decreasing alcohol consumption [0], which the article mentions. Also, as Tyler Cowen writes [1], this is probably going to translate into big improvements for animal welfare: > People lose weight on these drugs because they eat less, and eating less usually means eating less meat. And less meat consumption results in less factory farming. This should count as a major victory for animal welfare advocates, even though it did not come about through their efforts. No one had to be converted to vegetarianism, and since these drugs offer other benefits, this change in the equilibrium is self-sustaining and likely to grow considerably. So overall, widespread Ozempic adoption seems like progress to me. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/28/1194526119/ozempic-wegovy-drinking-alcohol-cravings-semaglutide https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/28/1194526... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07-20/animal-welfare-is-improving-no-thanks-to-activists https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07-20/animal...
  • tredre3 2y ago
    > big improvements for animal welfare Is it? It might reduce the amount of animals killed, sure, but it won't improve the well-being of the ones that are still raised.
    • elif 2y ago
      It also reduces the number of animals that suffer if the suffering is more important to your ethics.
      • randomdata 2y ago
        Maybe. There is some evidence that the decline in fertility rates are associated with overweight and obesity. Social and biological factors leave having children more difficult when one is outside of a "normal" weight range. If everyone is on Ozempic, they might have more children, requiring more overall food and harming even more animals in the process.
        • 2y ago
• indiebat 2y ago
  I don’t want this to come out insensitive or from under the rock, but why is taking a drug a novel & cool idea (all of a sudden/recently) as opposed to good old fashioned working out and not eating more than what you need? okay, this drug is all kinds of great and it’s the next best thing since green grapes, still not eating more and workout is better than taking drugs that effect your brain right? Are doctors required to explain this before prescribing this in US?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • apsec112 2y ago
    Saying that the cure for obesity is to eat less is like saying that the cure for heroin addiction is to stop using heroin. It's both clearly true, and also useless.
    • chrismarlow9 2y ago
      The cure is to teach from an early age about impulse control, moderation, and how to spot signs of addiction in yourself early. This goes for: Social media Drugs and alcohol Food Or literally any other addiction. I don't think this is a useless thing to discuss.
      • soulbadguy 2y ago
        And yet most obese people are no more addicted to food than you are addicted to oxygen... It's so bizarre how many people will pretzel their way into moralistic non sense to find a solution to what is clearly a medical problem. Obesity as far as we understanding it now is an hunger regulation problem. For unknown reason a lot of people still feel the need to eat even when their body is clearly in calory surplus. No amount of of impulse control or moderation can make you override billions of years of evolution and not eat when you are starving... if we could... society would be a very different place
        • 2y ago
• amatecha 2y ago
  This article seems to frame things in such a strange way. Maybe instead of trying to get everyone obesity medication, we can instead educate society so we all understand nutrition and diet and can combat the ever-persistent forces of corporations pushing unhealthy food on us?
  • gedy 2y ago
    Look we've been educating people about this for the past 50 years at least - education doesn't work with base impulses.
  • cbsmith 2y ago
    Yes, because what obese people lack is education.
    • amatecha 2y ago
      From my subjective experience in life, what they very often lacked was parents who set the right examples around food. I know that doesn't apply to everyone of course, but I've witnessed it time and time again - an upbringing with deeply disordered routines/practices around food. It's universal among obese people in my life. I speculate that better awareness of diet/nutrition might help to prevent passing on such behaviours, like not feeding the family exclusively a bucket of KFC or McDonalds, or using food as a reward, etc. etc.. I mean, medication won't actually solve what is caused by behaviour, right? Maybe the behaviour can be reduced on a broader scale, over time, via people making better-informed decisions? If parents know their habits around food are basically ensuring their kids will struggle with obesity, maybe they'll make the effort to do something different? Dunno, it seems like a reasonable consideration.
      • cbsmith 2y ago
        > From my subjective experience in life, what they very often lacked was parents who set the right examples around food. No amount of education will change who your parents were or how you were raised. Have you observed a strong correlation between how well educated someone is vs. obesity? > I speculate that better awareness of diet/nutrition might help to prevent passing on such behaviours, like not feeding the family exclusively a bucket of KFC or McDonalds, or using food as a reward, etc. etc. I'd encourage you to talk to any reasonably intelligent obese parent to see if they need better awareness of diet/nutrition. Better still, do a survey of obese and non-obese people to compare awareness of diet/nutrition between the two groups. > I mean, medication won't actually solve what is caused by behaviour, right? Saying that obesity is caused by behaviour and therefore can't be solved with medication is a bold statement to make in the context of a story about a drug that has been clinically proven to help obese people to lose weight. Medication is often prescribed to help people who suffer from behavioural problems with positive results. I wouldn't presume medication can solve all problems caused by behaviour, but there is empirical evidence that for some problems it does help. As near as we can tell, human behaviour is regulated by a electrochemical brain & nervous system. Dumping chemicals into that system can of course change human behaviour. We see evidence of that (for better or for worse) all the time. If you have doubts and you don't even need to get a prescription, try taking a hit of acid/cocaine/alchohol and see if behaviour changes. > If parents know their habits around food are basically ensuring their kids will struggle with obesity, maybe they'll make the effort to do something different? The US has had a dramatic increase in obesity within a single generation (as in, people who were not obese for much of their lives have become morbidly obese at a rate far exceeding previous generations), let alone cross generational. While food/nutrition/health habits can certainly have a profound effect on someone's weight, there are clearly other factors at play. Consider, for a moment, the reality of an obese person living in the US today. You get negative feedback about your weight all the time. You suffer negative social outcomes, let alone all the physical ones, so few, if any, want to be obese. There is no lack of motivation to seek out information on how to avoid being obese. There's a $300+ billion industry diet/health/nutrition industry constantly seeking to inform you about products they offer to help with your diet/health/nutrition... and that's not counting the doctors that you are no doubt interacting with regularly. Of course, that's not counting all the education (solicited or otherwise) you get from friends, family, acquaintances and even random strangers. It's hard to get through a day without being "educated" about diet, nutrition and health. There's a cultural bias to think the problem is simply about behavioural/willpower/education, much the same way we look at poverty. It demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of and empathy for the plight of people who are suffering from obesity.
• winterrx 2y ago
  David Friedberg recently did an All-In Interview with the CEO of Eli Lilly. Interesting conversation over there that also talked about some key points of the article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=023exhA9irY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=023exhA9irY
• breck 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mock-possum 2y ago
    > “Is it bad for my liver to be off most of the time?” It's generally not healthy to keep your major organs in the off state. If you never open your eyes, you go blind. I feel like this is missing the obvious follow up question, “is it bad for my liver to be on most of the time?”
    • breck 2y ago
      > “is it bad for my liver to be on most of the time?” That's a good question! I'm not sure. My guess would be its perfectly healthy (normal actually) to have 10x levels of ketones constantly than an American eating the SAD (Standard American Diet). Anyone know of long term datasets that have looked at this in animals? Continuous Ketone Monitors for humans have _just_ come out (AFAIK), so we should know soon.
• tonymet 2y ago
  Yet another drug that patches up symptoms without addressing the root cause. People will be dependent on the drug for life. And we still don't know what the adverse effects are.
  • cubefox 2y ago
    We don't know the root cause yet and therefore can't treat it, so the drug is great for what it is.
    • tonymet 2y ago
      The root cause is depravity
      • cubefox 2y ago
        Maybe, but what caused the depravity?
        • sickofparadox 2y ago
          Lowered barriers to high calorie density foodstuffs.
          • tonymet 2y ago
            only a cynic believes that people are mindless automata lacking agency
• jaco6 2y ago
  I’m just as curious as to why some people are so willing to take numerous medications, while others go to any lengths to avoid them. Some people are happy to be on an SSRI, sleeping pill, statin, low dose aspirin, and a few others, and aren’t bothered by this. Other people seem instinctively revolted by prescription drugs, seeing toxins pushed by evil corporations. Is it a trust issue? I personally detest and avoid all medicines other than antibiotics and vaccines. Pharmaceuticals have a long track record of harboring “side effects” that only become apparent years later. In general, why are we surprised that the chronic use of any substance has negative effects? Humans evolved for thousands of years eating food and drinking water. Regularly consuming anything else is an abberration and self-experiment.
  • lurking_swe 2y ago
    I think the answer to your question is that people who avoid drugs understand that drugs do not fix anything permanently, in 99% of cases. They only treat symptoms. The people who avoid drugs attempt to treat the underlying problems. of course it’s not always practical. For example, some skinny people are simply genetically predisposed to high blood pressure, even if they work out and eat pretty healthy. It’s rare, but these things happen.
  • jackcosgrove 2y ago
    To address the question in your first paragraph, I think it's due to whether you think your locus of control is internal or external.
    • poorinterview 2y ago
      You can have an internal locus of control and still believe the benefits of taking something like an SSRI far outweigh the costs of attempting to address depression/anxiety more "naturally." I'd rather take an SSRI if it means more motivation to live healthily, positively, productively for myself and family. If anything, the drug could very well help someone discover their sense of agency.
  • Blackthorn 2y ago
    Nobody ever gets sus about needing to take heart medication every day to stay alive but the moment it becomes about how I take Lexapro every day they get real preachy.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• optimalsolver 2y ago
  What happened to self-control?
  • crooked-v 2y ago
    The same thing that always happened to it: for a lot of people it just doesn't work.
  • DCH3416 2y ago
    Screw that
  • moogly 2y ago
    Turns out "just stop being fat lol" isn't very effectual advice.
    • pfdietz 2y ago
      It's the "git gud" of diet advice! I wonder if GLP-1 agonists are going to break gaming addiction too.
  • triceratops 2y ago
    If you got it, use it. If you don't got it, there's a little help now.
  • avelis 2y ago
    That's not a thing when considering how UPF creates addiction to food in the brain. Big Food knows this.
• jijji 2y ago
  you can buy tirzepatide / semaglutide all day long from labs in china for between $4 per injection all the way down to $0.50 per injection depending on quantity and type (prepackaged in vial vs raw powder)
  • trollski 2y ago
    [dead]
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    After tirzepatide was taken off the shortage list last week, I notice that there are suddenly a lot more people talking about this route. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Probably exceeds my comfort level, and I'm lucky enough that I can pay the $550/month for name brand if necessary. A lot of people will just have to stop, though, and deal with the consequences.
• hipadev23 2y ago
  Who has time to eat? Founder mode all day every day.
  • cubefox 2y ago
    Now that's the spirit!
• grecy 2y ago
  My god no. I'm 42 and I've never taken more than the odd painkiller or antibiotic here or there - less than a pill a year on average I'm sure. The last thing in the world I want is to be permanently on some drug that alters how my body works. I hike, snowboard, go to the gym and eat sensibly. That's all the "weight control" I need.
  • honkycat 2y ago
    Good for you man. 40% of the US is obese, we need a solution for better health outcomes.
    • ocular-rockular 2y ago
      So drugs? I think it's a lot simpler than that. US has an abusive relationship with junk/processed food. It's so deeply ingrained due to profit margins, wealth inequities, nonsensical subsidies, etc. that the only feasible solution is to introduce a drug that continues to allow that relationship to continue. It's a lot easier of a solution than it is to tell companies to stop making garbage or saturating everything with sugar and HFCS. "Easier to see end of the world than end to capitalism" -- its the same shit packaged in a different story... Easier to introduce a drug to treat the symptoms than to solve the actual problem. Mind you, I'm not implying that it is easy. We have collectively accepted this which makes change difficult if not impossible.
    • grecy 2y ago
      You make it sound like it’s out of your control. The solution is already there. It’s free. It works for everyone, and even 60% of people in the US are doing it! The right answer to being healthy is not more drugs.
      • rootusrootus 2y ago
        > 60% of people in the US are doing it! 25% is the number you were looking for, and even within that group I think you'd find plenty of people with a healthy BMI that are in fact not living a healthy lifestyle.
• pyrophane 2y ago
  One thing that it seems we are just starting to talk about with these drugs is the associated muscle and bone density loss. I'm concerned that this generation of GLP-1 early adopters will wind up more frail and suffer a lower quality of life in old age as a result.
  • petesergeant 2y ago
    I've seen zero evidence that muscle loss from GLP-1-assisted weight-loss is any different to the muscle loss from simply eating less. Do you have a link to a study I've missed?
  • cyberax 2y ago
    > One thing that it seems we are just starting to talk about with these drugs is the associated muscle and bone density loss. Muscle loss is associated with _any_ kind of weight loss. And GLP-1 drugs _improve_ the bone density: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/8/2909/2836097 https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/8/2909/2836097 It's likely simply because thinner people naturally move more.
    • ploppyploppy 2y ago
      Can these negative effects be countered/offset by continuing weight training? I lift 2-4 days a week.
      • cyberax 2y ago
        Certainly, just like with any other diet. I gained muscle mass by doing strength training 2 times a week while on GLP-1 drugs.
      • cthalupa 2y ago
        Yes, but you would certainly still see some - it's just a consequence of weight loss. Even IFBB bodybuilders on god knows how many steroids see some muscle loss when cutting. Eat a whole lot of protein, lift, and you're going to be doing more than fine in the muscle loss department.
• heraldgeezer 2y ago
  [flagged]
• k__ 2y ago
  How are the side effects? I read plastic surgeons said it was bad for your skin and people would look much older when they take it for a few months. Yet, I also read it was generally good for your health, not just in terms of weight loss.
  • logicchains 2y ago
    I'm not a fan of the drug but that aging could just be due to the weight loss: skin generally looks more wrinkly (older) after losing weight.
    • jart 2y ago
      It depends how old you are. Skin loses its elasticity after a certain age. So weight is a problem you should spare no expense fixing sooner rather than later. Even if you do something about your weight at a later age, the health benefits for your heart for example will greatly outweigh the loose skin.
• djsavvy 2y ago
  My pet crackpot theory is that within the next 100 years semaglutide is going to be in the drinking water (much like fluoride) because the benefit to society is going to be too hard to pass up on. However, it seems that it's delivered via injection so maybe putting it in the water supply wouldn't even be effective.
  • cooljacob204 2y ago
    I don't think anything that can influence our choices would ever get enough public approval for that.
  • logicchains 2y ago
    It's funny you say that because just now the US is starting to re-consider water fluoridation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation-water-epa-risk-assessement https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation... . It's also relative uncommon in other developed countries; according to Wikipedia, "Out of a population of about three-quarters of a billion, under 14 million people (approximately 2%) in Europe receive artificially-fluoridated water. Those people are in the UK (5,797,000), Republic of Ireland (4,780,000), Spain (4,250,000), and Serbia (300,000)."
    • supportengineer 2y ago
      The benefits of fluoridation were amazing. I didn't have a single cavity until I was 25 and had moved away from that area to a non-fluoridated area.
      • ninalanyon 2y ago
        Don't you clean your teeth with a fluoridated toothpaste? That should be plenty good enough, no need to put it in the drinking water.
        • supportengineer 2y ago
          That’s what I’m telling you. It’s not the same.
• cyberax 2y ago
  One other note: the current peptide-based GLP-1 drugs are not likely to be the permanent solution. Injectables are just too problematic for that. Several companies are now working on more classic small-molecule drugs targeting the same receptors. So it's likely that in several years we'll get a pill with the same effects. Yes, there's technically a pill version of Ozempic already (Rybelsus), but it works by making the stomach wall to be slightly permeable to peptides. You can guess that it has pretty unpleasant side effects, and an awesome bioavailability of 0.7%
  • connicpu 2y ago
    I'm curious what about injectables makes them specifically problematic for long term use? Diabetics already have to inject insulin for the rest of their lives, and an injectable version of the same drug usually has fewer side effects since it doesn't have to pass through your gut metabolism. I may be biased, I have no fear of needles and have injected myself with sex hormones every week for nearly 7 years, so adding an autoinjector doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.
    • cyberax 2y ago
      They are more expensive. Autoinjectors are way more complicated than a pill bottle. You also can't freeze them, but they should be kept in a fridge. Manufacturing standards also have to be way higher. I have no problem trusting Novo Nordisk to manufacture injectors safely, but I won't trust a random manufacturer from India or China. The risk of accidental infection from injection also is not neglibible.
      • connicpu 2y ago
        Fair considerations, I just disagree that it makes injections inherently problematic for long term use. Primarily because I have doubts about the possibility of a pill that doesn't come with more side effects than an equivalent injectable.
• zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Eumenes 2y ago
  The day Ozempic/similar drugs become approved for weight loss under ACA/Medicare is the day I stop paying taxes.
  • pfdietz 2y ago
    Good news! You'll probably be able to get GLP-1 agonists in prison.
    • snvzz 2y ago
      There are legal ways to stop paying taxes in a country, such as moving elsewhere. It is a much safer assumption to make than tax evasion.
      • Eumenes 2y ago
        You're required to pay taxes to the US forever, unless you renounce your citizenship, which costs money too: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2022/07/06/leave-us-pay-irs-taxes-forever https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2022/07/06/leave-us-...
        • snvzz 2y ago
          Renouncing citizenship does cost money? Jesus. I am glad not to be a US citizen; I moved to Japan and very easily stopped paying taxes to my former country.
  • ogogmad 2y ago
    I'll bite: Why?
  • rangestransform 2y ago
    It’ll cost less than the effects of obesity Moral hazard has never been a good reason for any sort of regulation, the same principle can be used to justify not covering motorcycle riders, people who trad climb, people who do snow sports, people who jaywalk, people who work at a desk and drive everywhere, etc etc etc
• valunord 2y ago
  Fuck that. Just have some willpower! Some of us have been doing OMAD without assistance, just grunting through the stress and pain for years. It's much healthier than drugging up.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • snvzz 2y ago
    After one year of OMAD and 15kg less, I am now at about ideal weight by BMI (22). I didn't even need much if any willpower past the first couple days. This push for Ozempic is utter madness.
• steveBK123 2y ago
  One lurking concern I've had around this space is that junk food makers simply find a way to make their food even more addicting. Arguably though, ozempic'd customers and shrinkflation'd products would be a recipe for amazing margin improvement. And they can dress it up as doing good because its better for people, (like the 100 calorie snack packaging).
  • sph 2y ago
    You can see that in the lab-grown burger space already: it is a massive opportunity for companies to create an ultra-processed version of meat, and label it as healthy as the public opinion has gone blindly against meat and on the vegan bandwagon. They'll claim it's more eco-friendly, they can sell it 5x the price of beef and rake billions.
    • rootusrootus 2y ago
      > public opinion has gone blindly against meat Only if you spend too much time online. In the grocery store, I don't see any indication that meat substitutes are gaining traction. If anything, popularity seems to be ebbing. The people choosing fake beef for their burgers are a tiny minority.
      • steveBK123 2y ago
        Indeed, a COVID era ZIRP funded fad that has fallen on hard times. A product that fits a niche - former meat eaters who miss meat and want to be vegetarians. Otherwise for true health conscious or longtime vegetarians there are better options.
      • sph 2y ago
        True, the point is that the online minority is the loudest and in this day and age they drive change. I heard talks of taxing red meat in UK, for example, which is absolutely ludicrous.
        • sph 2y ago
• dfxm12 2y ago
  Instead of a system that makes these drug available for purchase, I'd rather live in a system that promotes healthy food and active behavior. Unfortunately, I have to drive everywhere, work too many hours to have free time for recreation and have no idea which government subsidy is going to help big ag likely at the expense of my health. All things being equal, I'd prefer to spend less money on prescriptions and have fewer trips to the doctor.
  • epolanski 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • haliskerbas 2y ago
      As with everything I'm sure there is a spectrum. There are surely folks who have food addictions, there are surely folks who are not taking accountability for their habits, and there are possibly folks for whom this could be the best or safest option.
      • epolanski 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • wizzwizz4 2y ago
          It doesn't follow that your body, when running at a calorific deficit, will continue to run the life support systems at optimal levels. In principle, it's possible (unless you're actually fasting, which is a whole different kettle of fish) for a reduction in energy-in to lead to putting on more weight, if your basal metabolic rate drops more than the food did. It's complicated. What's true for some people isn't necessarily true for all people. Sure, I'm willing to bet a lot of people – probably most people – are able to choose how fat they are by adjusting their diet and exercise regime, without adverse effects on their health, but that's not a law of biology. I know as many people who struggle to put on weight as struggle to lose it.
        • 2y ago
• blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  Uhhhhh, Ozempic has so many problems and side effects that get glossed over.
• godshatter 2y ago
  Can you keep the weight off once you stop using it? I don't particularly want to have my personal health be in the hands of one company especially if the culture stratifies into those who can afford to be the right weight and those that can't. Especially when it enters it's "enshittification" stage.
  • petesergeant 2y ago
    It's hard to keep weight off once you stop using it, but I've not seen anything to suggest it's harder to keep it off if you lost using GLP-1 than if you lost the weight the normal way. Most fat people I know have lost weight successfully more than once "the hard way" and then regained it.
• olddog2 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure all the Shortages of Ozempic and mounjaro are due to injector mechanism production factors and the fact that when the drug is transported in a reconstituted fashion in the injector, it needs to be kept in cold chain storage the whole way which makes logistics much much harder My friends and I all live outside of the USA and we can get basically unlimited ampoules of powdered Mounjaro from China. It is very simple to reconstitute with Sterile water in a no touch way and works great. We have all had significant weight loss and improvement in blood pressure and glucose levels etc. Waiting for these companies to get their act together, especially when mounjaro is a copycat drug is not acceptable. these drugs are biochemically very simple peptides with a couple of cross linkages and very easy to make in high quantities so there is no excuse for everyone who needs them to not be on them. a large portion of the world not having access to these drugs for the patent period and continuing to suffer all the effect of obesity is not morally acceptable.
  • cubefox 2y ago
    Arguably it is morally acceptable for them to charge high prices because drug development and doing phase 1/2/3 trials is very expensive. It's also risky, as most drugs fail. If companies aren't allowed to make a big profit when they finally struck gold means to remove the incentive of trying to develop ambitious new drugs.
• m3kw9 2y ago
  I think there will be a time when engineered chemicals will beat natural food, but right now this isn’t it. I’m talking about longetivity tech in the far/ or near future
• subroutine 2y ago
  It will be interesting to see how health insurance companies deal with Ozempic. A few days ago a top article on HN posed the question: Millions of Americans could benefit from drugs like Ozempic; will they bankrupt the healthcare system? Of course there are many health benefits to losing weight. Given there are clear, healthy, non-drug assisted ways to lose weight, should drug-assisted weight loss be considered an 'elective' procedure, so to speak (similar to liposuction). With so many people qualifying for this drug, would it be fair to increase insurance premiums for overweight individuals? (I say this as someone who could lose a few lbs). Should healthy active folks who keep their weight in-check naturally be required to foot some of the insurance premium bill for those who use this drug to lose weight? If someone rebounds multiple times after going off Ozempic do we continue to collectively pay? Will we be required to collectively pay for people to stay on Ozempic indefinitely to maintain a healthy weight? https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2024-05-29/will-ozempic-bankrupt-the-u-s-healthcare-system https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2024-05-29/will-ozempi...
  • calvinmorrison 2y ago
    The cost of someone being on Ozempic is going to be miles less than treating fatties for all the related obesity problems.
    • crooked-v 2y ago
      Yeah, right now the cost of the drug itself is high, but as that comes down and/or once the patents expire, it's a no brainer for insurance companies to fund it, in the same way that even the worst health insurance plans usually allow for cheap office visits and free flu vaccinations.
      • subroutine 2y ago
        I agree if the cost becomes negligible or whenever it becomes cost effective (I'm sure the insurance companies will be tracking the data closely) - until then though?
    • subroutine 2y ago
• farceSpherule 2y ago
  A lot of people fail to realize that eating healthy and exercising is not enough for a lot of people who fight with their weight their entire lives. Ozempic and Wegovy are game changes and have real, tangible health benefits. One person told me, "No matter how much I eat or exercise, I have been 'hungry' my entire life. That ended when I started taking these drugs."
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Uehreka 2y ago
    I gained about 50 pounds the past decade and the past year I’ve been trying to lose it. I weighed myself at the beginning: 205 lbs I started running 30 minutes per day (heartrate training targeting about 140-150), every day, for 10 months. I kept my diet the same as before (though with a protein bar after the run). Weighed myself every week or two, always within a couple pounds of 205. In March I ramped up my runs to 45 minutes per day with better interval planning. Still 205. I injured my ankle in May: 205. I’ve been busy and haven’t gotten back into running yet, just weighed myself, and after months of no activity: 205 Weight loss is hard. It is possible to put in a pretty strenuous amount of effort and willpower and see exactly zero results.
    • sph 2y ago
      What do you eat? I bet $10 either it's calorie-counted standard high carb diet or something that is low in protein and fats. The physiology of dieting, and avoiding hunger, is pretty well understood at this point. Just don't ask your GP or they'll just tell you to stop eating red meat and eat more cereals as the "solution".
      • pixl97 2y ago
        Eh, in a clinical setting only eating "good food" works fine. In the real world this is not what people experience. Especially those that experience mental food noise. Imagine there is a donut in a box at work. It's free, you can have it at any point. It's junk food, it's bad for you, it's not part of your diet and you don't want it. I mean you ate a high fiber food and protein earlier, you shouldn't be hungry at all. Now imagine there's an additional voice in your head that just slips in "Ok, finish that page your on and go pick up that donut". How long can you resist it? You probably won't even notice it since it's the normal stream of thought you have. At some point you'll end up with that donut in your hand. Now take a GLP-1. The voice gets silenced. If you smoke or drink you'll notice that you don't really want to do that either.
• andrewla 2y ago
  I think Ozempic is a treatment of a symptom but not the underlying condition, but unlike many of the posters here, I do not think the underlying condition is "obesity". The below is mostly speculation. Research especially into people with healthy body weight seems to indicate that there is something going on that is causing widespread obesity. That is, there's some sort of environmental "GLP-1 Turbocharger". Maybe it relates to processed food, maybe it relates to microplastic contamination, maybe it's in the cheese, maybe it's an innocuous viral agent, maybe it's gut biome, maybe it's ADHD drugs, maybe it's SSRIs. I suspect that Ozempic is helping us get back to a baseline level of exposure by counteracting this. And in the future if we're lucky we'll figure out what it is and try to correct it at the source.
  • jncfhnb 2y ago
    You think ozempic is counteracting this mystery force and it is mere unrelated coincidence that it results in eating substantially less?
    • andrewla 2y ago
      Yes? A lizard whose bite makes its prey eat less is crazy but it exists. A lizard whose bite makes its prey eat more is also crazy, but maybe it exists? The first lizard is literal, the second lizard is a stand-in for whatever mystery force I am postulating the existence of. When you look at the historic literature on diet and nutrition from the first half of the century it's like looking into another universe. People are obsessed with getting people to eat more to prevent malnutrition even when food is freely available. Something changed.
      • squidgedcricket 2y ago
        The food changed substantially. Lot's of other stuff changed too, but we're talking about the transition from malnutrition to obesity over a few generations and the make up of what we ingest strongly impacts that. Mass production and consumerism of food created perverse incentives that resulted in drastic changes to diets - different macronutrient profiles, new ingredients (emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners), and new manufacturing byproducts (residual solvents, pfas, plastic). You can still opt-out of mass produced food and move to the bush to live a subsistence life, and you'll still be ingesting plastic and pfas. Part of the reason this is so hard to grapple with is that (in the USA) almost no one alive was an adult before the food industry industrialized. I'm 40 and my parents and grandparents rode the initial waves of processed garbage.
• starluz 2y ago
  [dead]
• bozhark 2y ago
  Why would you ever take a pill for weight loss? That’s seems entirely fucked up
  • Maxatar 2y ago
    What is inherently wrong with taking a pill for weight loss? I can understand being cautious about side-effects or efficacy, but if a pill existed that resulted in weight loss and was side-effect free, I can't imagine what would be inherently wrong about taking it. Would it be preferable if it were a powder, or a cream? Is it the specific delivery format that has you concerned?
• yapyap 2y ago
  gonna be a good while
• robohydrate 2y ago
  I've been on tirzepatide (Mounjaro) for 4 months now. I'm down 13% of my body weight. I realized that frequent cannabis consumption interferes with the weight loss, so I've kicked the habit from daily to occasionally on weekends. I've started walking 2-3 miles a day, 2-3 days a week regularly, in addition to eating less and being more motivated to calorie count. All this to say, this drug has been life changing for me. I spend more time doing things I want to do, depression and anxiety have less of a hold on me now. I feel that this drug has allowed me to be the best version of myself I have been in a long time. The only side effects so far have been positive. I do worry about what I will do once it's time to titrate off the weekly dose and the best I can think of is that the habits I'm forming in the time on the drug I will have the resolve to continue after cessation. I say this because I have battled depression, anxiety and obesity issues my entire life. I've had many failed attempts at getting back to a healthy, productive and non-obese lifestyle. I don't know what is so different about having the drug help me, but I can tell you that it has been different.
  • yieldcrv 2y ago
    Sounds like a kickstart you needed! Aside from the disruption in cravings, the immediate results seem to have motivated you to do more.
    • robohydrate 2y ago
      You can't imagine how empowering it is to be able to say "No." to food. I stopped eating dessert except once a week. I can be in the company of other people and surrounded by delicious food and not feel the compulsion to eat until I am nauseous.
      • card_zero 2y ago
        [flagged]
      • yieldcrv 2y ago
        This is interesting as this is my default, and I am pretty lean. I often have to remember to eat or check if I did, and lament that its a chore. I enjoy food and the dining experience, but I would be fine with that being an entertainment option once a week too. I wonder if there is enough research on how gut bacteria influences these things, because if this is what people want maybe I could sell mine.
• lol768 2y ago
  > How long til we're all on Ozempic? It's genuinely quite depressing that so many people in the United States have a weight problem that the overwhelming majority of the population would benefit from this and headlines including "we are all" are not inaccurate. I don't think other countries are necessarily perfect here, but 74% of Americans don't have a healthy weight when you look at their BMI. That's a staggering statistic. Something is seriously wrong societally, and the priority should absolutely be non-pharmaceutical interventions.
  • beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
    I agree. I think the conversation has unfortunately been dominated by an individualistic strain of moral judgement. Whether so and so, this person or that person, should take Ozempic-like drugs is often discussed in binary terms of near moral and personal failing or not. I think the drugs are helpful to people who really need them --- so long as the people really need them. The problem is that conversation overshadows the much more important big picture conversation: An entire nation is now becoming synonymous with poor health from obesity and we're not addressing many of the core nationwide reasons for that. America was once proud of and eager to prove how fit and able its people were. Now the very idea of proper nutrition and exercise is deemed a nonstarter, "impossible", or an imposition on personal liberties. The existence of Ozempic-like drugs should not absolve us from the imperative to change how we live as a nation for the sake of our health.
  • downrightmike 2y ago
    We're all depressed and overworked and have been for decades. Food is an escape
    • marcosdumay 2y ago
      Add forced sedentarism into that set. This is not exclusive to the US. The world is trending towards those, and different countries seem to only be at different distances from it, but the same velocity. Also, industrialized food seems to be much more effective in causing dependency. Food preparation has overwhelmingly shifted into less healthy alternatives (even when they sound healthier in a naive review)... And there's a multitude of low probability high impact possible contributors that nobody knows if are important or not.
• soulbadguy 2y ago
  As every conversation with weigth management/obesity treatment, there are still people thinking that just more willing power / better habits is what's needed. To those people I suggest you run an experiment : what ever your current body weigth is right now. Try loosing and keeping off 20%.
  • wiseowise 2y ago
    > To those people I suggest you run an experiment : what ever your current body weigth is right now. Try loosing and keeping off 20%. Easy peasy. I’d be borderline anorexie if I do that, but wouldn’t be much of a problem to achieve that.
    • switch007 2y ago
      Are you Dutch by any chance? Because they seem have a society deeply structured around health, exercise and good eating habits. And they tend to have a "just do X, it's so easy" kind of attitude, forgetting they are benefitting massively from their environment and society and not just will power alone
• highwayman47 2y ago
  Why can’t there be a drug for chronically underweight
• throw4847285 2y ago
  For a second I thought it said Asterix Mag and started daydreaming about a story where Getafix invents a special magic potion which Obelix can use but it causes him to lose weight. Dargaud, I am available.
• unkoman 2y ago
  Most of us should probably be on appetite suppressors due to the industrial revolution making food more than abundant while pumping it full of empty calories.
  • anigbrowl 2y ago
    Just eat regular food. Hardly anything in my diet would be mysterious to a time traveler from 100 years ago, or indeed 200 years ago. Occasionally I enjoy chocolate or instant noodles but mostly it's just fruit, veg, meat, dairy, and grains. If you don't know what something is made out of or how, then don't eat it.
    • rootusrootus 2y ago
      Not a panacea. I stay fat no problem without junk food. Processed foods make me ill, so I make almost all my own meals from whole ingredients. Too many calories is too many calories no matter how you get it. I'm a pretty good cook, though.
      • anigbrowl 2y ago
        Obviously one should not eat too much, but I was responding specifically to the comment about the industrial revolution leading to engineered foods full of empty calories in the grandparent comment. I would personally like to see such food regulated mostly out of existence, but in the meantime I just encourage people not to eat it.
  • bowsamic 2y ago
    We have control though, it isn't 100% the environment. Imo that's just used as an excuse
• zombiwoof 2y ago
  Let’s all go on it, and steroids
• xyst 2y ago
  Maybe when food shortages become a thing, we can add Ozempic to the water supply to curb people’s appetites and reduce demand. \s Kidding aside, I still think it’s extreme for off-label usage. Short term results are nice. But what about the long term? Once patients reach a desirable state, can they be titrated off the medication while maintaining their ideal labs and weight? What’s the rate of recidivism?
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    > off-label usage Off label? Semaglutide is approved for weight loss.
• OptionOfT 2y ago
  As someone who struggled with their weight his whole life, this medication is a god send. My wife and I cook every evening. We never eat food made in a factory. We buy raw products and spend a good amount of time every day cooking them. Every morning I wake up and go on a 5 mile hike. And still weight kept on coming on. Worse yet, I am on ADHD medication, which are amphetamines and actually make you lose weight. Yet... the number on the scale kept on creeping up. And you know what it is? It's volume. I eat too much. And I have no cookies at home. I have no chips at home. No soda, no alcohol. I drink black coffee with a splash of milk. I don't eat any sweeteners. I have had weight loss surgery (lap band) which was later reversed as it hurt 24/7. Now, on ZepBound I lost 20lbs in 2 months. I am not hungry. My brain can actually focus on the things that matter. Why do we find it acceptable to help people who struggle with alcohol abuse, or nicotine addiction, or opioid addiction, but not to help people who struggle with food abuse?
  • ak_111 2y ago
    "Why do we find it acceptable to help people who struggle with alcohol abuse, or nicotine addiction, or opioid addiction, but not to help people who struggle with food abuse?" I think it is because if 90% of the population did half of what you do (and kudos for you for doing it), they wouldn't have a problem with weight, you just happen to be one of the unlucky few where it doesn't work and these drugs are useful.
    • karmajunkie 2y ago
      there are numerous studies posted in this thread demonstrating exactly the opposite.
      • ak_111 2y ago
        Which studies? I find it hard to imagine that it has been proven that for most people having a low-carb unprocessed meal once a day, no alcohol, and 5-mile daily hikes as the original poster does would would not eliminate sever weight issues. There are clearly minority of people who can only achieve weight loss using drugs but for most people they can achieve the same effect by a lifestyle change, has this been proven incorrect? I think the best empirical result for this is to compare US with any other western country (say Japan or France) or even US states with each other, clearly lifestyle plays a huge role in obesity.
• hilux 2y ago
  Living a healthy lifestyle, so that you won't need Ozempic, is possible - even surrounded by all the drugs and booze and carbs. I do it. Lots of people do it. The information is freely available, now more than ever. From all I've read, Ozempic isn't a silver bullet, and has many side effects. It just helps people stave off the inevitable for a while.
  • pixl97 2y ago
    Well good for you, aren't you special... Now what about the other 74% of the population. You ever hear the saying "If you owe the bank $1000 dollars, that's your problem. If you owe the bank a million it's theirs" This is a public health epidemic and no matter how much you scream "But I'm special" the rest of the world is going to fall apart around you. And yes, this issue is spreading to the entire world and not just the US.
    • hilux 2y ago
      > no matter how much you scream "But I'm special" You are deliberately missing my point: I'm not special. Go back to reddit, where they appreciate your "style" of discussion.
    • wiseowise 2y ago
      > and no matter how much you scream "But I'm special" Literally opposite of what they’re saying. You’re the one who screams “I’m special, diet and exercise don’t work on me, I’m defying physics”.
  • Someone1234 2y ago
    The population level statistics show that you're the exception and not the rule. Obviously if the side-effects are unpleasant, the alternative health implications must be even worse: Which they are.
    • hilux 2y ago
      This may sound cynical, but I believe it is also factual: in a capitalist society, generating revenue by making people sick (junk food), and then generating more revenue by curing them, and finally making a big pile by keeping them alive for a few more weeks, is the way it's "supposed" to work. If everyone stayed healthy and then peacefully died one day in their sleep, I can't imagine how many $$$trillions that would remove from the US economy. (I know, there's an argument that healthy people would find other ways to generate revenue, but we have no path to realize that.) Of course, a century of non-capitalist societies don't have a great track record either!
• Cyclone_ 2y ago
  Well the title is a little silly even if it's meant to be provocative. There's a limit to just how many people would benefit from the drug, since those who exercise frequently enough wouldn't have the need for it ever.
• goshx 2y ago
  My wife was interested in taking the Ozempic route, and I am not fond of drugs. We then started intermittent fasting together as a lifestyle, and it's been great. Losing weight while not restricting what we eat and feeling great as our body adapts and doesn't let us overeat. I just wonder about the long-term effects, but I'd rather take this risk than a drug like Ozempic.
  • seanthemon 2y ago
    We did this, this happened to us: after a while you or her may get extremely obsessed with food and eventually get to the point where you overeat as a form of 'freedom' until you just can't stop. IF works until it doesn't, then it REALLY doesn't work. My wife had a breakdown before we realized something was incredibly wrong. YMMV.
    • goshx 2y ago
      Thank you, I’ll pay attention to that.
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    I've never been more insufferable and hangry than when fasting. I'm glad it works for you.
• tonetheman 2y ago
  [dead]
• dcchambers 2y ago
  I hate that we are obsessed with treating the symptoms of our issues instead of the cause.
  • bitcoin_anon 2y ago
    If you treat the cause, the symptoms go away along with a possible stream of revenue for the "health" care industry.
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    I feel the same way about heart disease and cancer. Actually, no I don't. God bless modern medicine.
• bitcoin_anon 2y ago
  The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests starting children on weight loss medication as early as 12 years old: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/151/2/e2022060640/190443/Clinical-Practice-Guideline-for-the-Evaluation-and?autologincheck=redirected https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/151/2/e20220... The farmers are subsidized to grow the corn. 10% of SNAP benefits are spent on sugary drinks. Yet we're expected to believe that these children were born w/ the chronic disease of obesity and they'll need to be on these drugs their whole lives.
• cdchn 2y ago
  Obesity rate in the US has started to decline and it sounds like they're largely attributing it to ozempic et al.
• aayala 2y ago
  just eat healthy and be active
• Animats 2y ago
  Novo Nordisk just settled with Viatris, a company which was trying to have the Ozempic patent cancelled.[1] That would have killed their monopoly. "Terms of the settlement are confidential". They just did the same thing with Mylan.[2] And may have done something similar with Rio Pharmaceuticals.[3] The Federal Trade Commission is also fighting that.[4] [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/novo-nordisk-settles-us-patent-fight-with-viatris-over-ozempic-wegovy-2024-10-07/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/novo-nordisk-settle... [2] https://iplaw.allard.ubc.ca/2024/10/08/settlement-of-patent-case-with-potential-to-limit-reach-of-ozempic/ https://iplaw.allard.ubc.ca/2024/10/08/settlement-of-patent-... [3] https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52064967/NOVO_NORDISK_INC_et_al_v_RIO_BIOPHARMACEUTICALS,_INC https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52064967/NOVO_NORDI... [4] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/30/ftc-challenges-patents-held-by-drugmakers-including-for-ozempic.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/30/ftc-challenges-patents-held-...
• Retr0id 2y ago
  As far as I can tell, the intended meaning of the question in the title is "how long until everyone who wants Ozempic can have it?". But at first I read it in a more cynical and sinister way, the more literal interpretation - how long until everyone is on weight loss drugs? In a world where such medications are normalized, fast-food/processed-food companies might just work harder to make their products more addictive and pervasive, and then we're all back to square one.
  • bobro 2y ago
    Seems like all the incentives have been in place for us to have already maximized food addictiveness. We have to at least be pretty far up the S curve. I’d guess just the opposite actually, that companies will refocus on the healthfulness of their products now that customers aren’t as susceptible to the addictive aspects.
• bowsamic 2y ago
  I just calorie count. It's very easy and effective
  • sethaurus 2y ago
    Those of us who find calorie-counting easy and effective are the blessed few. Most people appear to find it even harder than other behavior-change approaches to weight management.
• nostromo 2y ago
  For the longest time people argued if overweight people ate too much or not. I’ve heard plausible sounding arguments on both sides. It seems Ozempic has answered that question decisively, no? The solution to being overweight is eating less in almost all cases it seems. And feeling less hungry with Ozempic can help get you there.
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    > For the longest time people argued if overweight people ate too much or not. Maybe uneducated people, but when was the last time anyone seriously doubted that excess calories make you fat? For serious people the discussion has always been about how to reduce the calories, because "just eat less" is provably ineffective. Simple minded people continuously suggest otherwise, but data really doesn't support their intuition at all.
    • nostromo 2y ago
      It’s never been as black and white as you’re saying. Lot’s of medical practitioners will even advise you that it’s the quality of food you eat, more so than the quantity. Look at all the published research around processed foods and ultra-processed foods. Other nutritionists will advise you that obesity is all about your macros. And that if you want to lose weight you need to increase fat and protein intake and limit carbs. Others have argued it’s less about diet and more about exercise and having an active lifestyle. There’s also a bunch of research showing that poor sleep might cause obesity. Ozempic seems to have thrown all that out the window and says that one just needs to eat less if one is overweight.
      • rootusrootus 2y ago
        All of those are permutations on the fundamental argument, not standalone arguments themselves. The idea with changing the quality of the food is that you'll eat less overall. Same with trying to adjust macros -- only unserious people suggest that calories are somehow different depending on source. The argument is that empty calories are less satisfying and will you to eat more overall. It is all just different approaches to finding a strategy for eating fewer calories overall.
• tananan 2y ago
  I hope that these drugs pull people back from nasty habits such that they eventually build the strength to do without them. As of yet, I do not see why it has to be a win-lose situation one way or the other. Crutches aren't evil - they are expedient while they are expedient. Sometimes when you have a really strong habit, it becomes really hard to imagine yourself being otherwise. I welcome anything that helps people see beyond a prison they've put themselves in, as long as it doesn't put them in a worse prison. Does Ozempic or whatever put one in a worse prison? This seems personal, and not a categorical matter. Those who take it have a choice of how to develop their sense of identity in relationship to their treatment. It is here where the rubber hits the road - these abstract extremes of "you're suppressing your ability to grow" and "you're hopeless without it" are short-sighted and serve no good purpose.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• archsurface 2y ago
  I don't share the American enthusiasm for pharmaceuticals. Exercise and healthy eating. I also don't have the other issues mentioned. Maybe the title is a bit clickbaity and I shouldn't be taking it so literally.
• sensanaty 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    I don't like processed foods and sugar in anything more than minimal quantities makes me ill. But I still get too many calories, at least as evidenced by my waistline. Are you sure the insanity isn't the assumption that it's just insufficient willpower or poor habits?
    • wiseowise 2y ago
      It’s statistically impossible for those 40% of obese people to be like you. 90% of them would fall into overweight in a course of multiple months if they’ve dropped sugar.
    • sensanaty 2y ago
      Have you tried actually counting calories? Because most people aren't really aware of the caloric contents of the foods they eat, and when they start counting calories it can be pretty shocking to see the realities. Especially if we're talking carbs like rice, bread, pasta etc., people tend to really underestimate the calories involved there. A big shocker for many people is that 30g of peanuts is roughly ~100-130kcal, for example, which is maybe a ~handful of nuts. A large portion of losing weight really does come down to CI/CO. There's a reason the common adage of "the waistline is molded in the kitchen, not the gym" exists. It's good to supplement a diet with exercise for various reasons, big one of them being reduction in muscle mass and bone density that accompanies weight loss, but if your goal is simply to lose a bit of weight, then decreasing your calories is the most reliable way of achieving it.
• 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
  I think we desperately need to answer the question of why GLP-1 agonists are so effective, and particularly whether it's counteracting something in the environment that has been acting to reduce GLP-1 (or other glucagon-related pathway) activity without us realizing it. The obesity data practically screams that something happened in North America ca. 1980 that messed up our metabolisms, and it may have spread to Europe after a delay. Unfortunately, it seems like one of those things where there are various people with pet theories and little substantial effort to get to the ground truth. Perhaps the inevitable search for "me-too drugs" will uncover something.
  • avelis 2y ago
    One aspect is that the US food system as a crap ton of UPF.
    • rootusrootus 2y ago
      How does that cause the rest of the world to also have decades-long steadily increasing obesity rates?
    • everfree 2y ago
      UPF means "ultra-processed foods", in case anyone else had to look it up like I did.
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    Europe has been climbing at a steady rate since at least 1975. https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/europe-faces-obesity-epidemic-as-figure-almost-tripled-in-40-years/ https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/europe-fa...
  • codersfocus 2y ago
    Glyphosate was introduced around that timeline.
  • asciimov 2y ago
    Coke and Pepsi started using HFCS in 1980. I’d be curious about side effects of the Depression and WW2 that took an extra generation to show up.
• reducesuffering 2y ago
  One very understated aspect that I haven't seen brought up: If part of the obesity epidemic is trying to consume food to make up for nutrient deficiencies, these drugs will only worsen these nutritional deficiencies. You'll lose weight short-term, but long-term sabotaged your body trying to attain these. We've seen declining vitamins and minerals in natural food (industrial produce growth). Maybe some people make it up with a heavy supplement regimen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of now-normal-weight people on Ozempic having major health problems due to increasingly deficient Vitamin A (already 51%), K (71%), E (94%), Magnesium (61%), Potassium (97%), Calcium (49%).
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    > If part of the obesity epidemic is trying to consume food to make up for nutrient deficiencies Is there evidence to support this hypothesis?
• nadyatolica 2y ago
  [dead]
• throwaway918299 2y ago
  My friend and my father in law both went on it. They both became suicidal and had to stop. YMMV but that’s enough for me. Eat less. Move more.
• aucisson_masque 2y ago
  So basically eat shit and then take drugs to lose the weight you accumulated because of your bad diet ?? Am I the only one to realize how this is so wrong? You would think When a pipe leaks, you fix it. You're not going to put a basin under it, empty it every day, pay for a new basin every few week and continue to have your damn pipe leak. Oh man... If only you could teach people how to eat better instead.
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    > Am I the only one No, definitely not. There's a few of you in this discussion.
  • leoh 2y ago
    You are wrong because being overweight means that your endocrine system is very messed up and can make it extremely difficult to make meaningful changes to your diet and habits. Take a look at the preponderance of folks who have taken GLP-1s here and have affected tremendously positive changes to their diet and exercise habits.
    • aucisson_masque 2y ago
      Being overweight doesn't prevent you from putting less junk food in your mouth, and instead eating vegetable.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  • OfficeChad 2y ago
    If only you could commit suicide...
• siliconc0w 2y ago
  It's pretty crazy to me that that we aren't already all on Ozempic. The cost to the country for all chronic conditions obesity causes will bankrupt the country. Insurers should basically be forced to cover all the downstream costs their policies create or they'll continue to kick the can. Ideally we didn't addict our country to cheap junk food but that ship has sailed. If it were up to me I'd tax the shit out of any company selling a product with more than five grams of sugar and use that to buy the patent to tirzepatide and make generic medications available asap.
• aucisson_masque 2y ago
  [flagged]
• artursapek 2y ago
  I'm old enough to remember when "weight loss pills" was a cliche punch line. Thank God there's no way these miracle drugs will turn out to have some terrible long-term side effects!
• xunil2ycom 2y ago
  Are we all diabetic? Because that's why I'm on it.
• Waterluvian 2y ago
  I’ve lost 40lbs this year since I started trying. All I did was cut out breakfast and only ever eat if I feel hungry. Thr first few weeks were hard. My body was hungry all the time. Now I feel hungry far less. I don’t get hungry until noon. The problem is that if I ever cheat and pig out, like, say, this Thanksgiving weekend, it resets and I feel a week or two of miserable hunger again. If I could cheat my brain in any way, it would be just not feeling hungry until noon, regardless of past actions.
  • snvzz 2y ago
    >If I could cheat my brain in any way, it would be just not feeling hungry until noon, regardless of past actions. Not eating too close to going to sleep suffices. I'd set the minimum at a good 4h.
• ilikeitdark 2y ago
  Drugs rule.
• tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  HN must be aging.
• se4u 2y ago
  The real fun will be when there is enough of this chemical in our waste runoff that cattle and wildlife gives up eating
• smugma 2y ago
  Many in the thread have asked “why get off the drug?” Regeneron is pursuing its own version of a magic weight loss drug and is arguing that the current batch of GLP1 drugs reduce muscle mass, which is one of the most important things to maintain as one passes middle age (comorbidity etc.) https://www.ft.com/content/094cbf1f-c5a8-4bb3-a43c-988bd8e2dea9 https://www.ft.com/content/094cbf1f-c5a8-4bb3-a43c-988bd8e2d... The co-founder of Regeneron has warned that blockbuster weight-loss drugs could cause “more harm than good” unless the rapid muscle loss associated with the treatments is solved... Clinical studies suggest that patients treated with the new class of weight- loss drugs, known as GLP-1s, lose muscle at far faster rates than people losing weight from diet or exercise, exposing them to health problems, said George Yancopoulos, who also serves as Regeneron’s chief scientific officer.
• p1dda 2y ago
  The number of 'smart' people in this thread advocating for the use of a drug instead of doing the obvious which is STOP EATING JUNK FOOD is staggering. Also the article is nothing more than a pharma ad. Idiotic and corrupt.
• gcanyon 2y ago
  To anyone thinking that exercise will fix anything: I've owned a Concept 2 rowing machine since 2005. In that time I've done an average of 100 workouts per year, for a total of over 35 days of rowing. Some workouts were relatively easy 120bpm heart rate; some were at a relatively brutal 160bpm. Concept 2 estimates I've burned just over 600,000 calories, or about 1,000 Big Macs. Could I have eaten 1,000 Big Macs in 19 years? I think so.
  • throwaway743950 2y ago
    "You can't outrun a bad diet."
  • wiseowise 2y ago
    > I've owned a Concept 2 rowing machine since 2005. Well here’s your problem. You should’ve bought barbell 20 years ago. Or at least a couple of kettlebells.
    • gcanyon 2y ago
      I've had kettlebells, and I've lifted weights. But to be clear, I never said I have a "problem" -- I have a reasonable weight, and at times I've been in the top half of the worldwide rankings on Concept 2's site. I'm just saying that rowing isn't (solely, if we're going to be picky) the reason I have a reasonable weight.
• tiffanyh 2y ago
  WFH & being sedentary Since WFH, it’s scary to me how sedentary I have become. It wouldn’t surprise me if I now walk < 1,000 steps per day. I can easily go a couple of days and never even leave the house. My waistline shows it. And I’m actually eating less than I did when I went into office. I guess its basic thermodynamics.
• naming_the_user 2y ago
  The headline here seems like an extremely baity one. A ton of people don’t have this issue at all. I hesitate to say “most” because both in the US and UK it seems the majority do. But it still feels like a hack to me. The issue seems like it’s that most people are now basically sedentary. So we can solve the excess hunger via drugs, but is that really what we should be doing? It feels to me that if we must have a wonder drug - it’d be one that gets people up and about and enjoying exercise. It seems really sad to me that so many feel that their physical form and embodiment is an annoyance rather than the gift it truly is.
• llamaLord 2y ago
  I find it fascinating how many things like this just completely gloss over the fact that some people have side-effects to these drugs that make them completely non-useable, and often it's some of the people who could most benefit. I have ADHD, and have tried all the current generation of these drugs and absolutely CANNOT take them, they basically prevent my ADHD medication from working and I end up depressed and wanting to kill myself. This idea of these drugs being a "cure-all" that we'll all just be taking one day proactively scares the shit out of me, because I worry it will mean that medical science will stall (as far as it relates to these types of conditions) for those of us who simply can't take these drugs.
• cashsterling 2y ago
  If you are on a weight loss drug like Ozempic, make sure you are doing resistance training. Ozempic reduces your appetite and help you go into a calorie deficit. Bone mass, muscle mass, ligament and tendon mass can all suffer on a calorie deficit unless your body is get regular stimulus that 'muscle, bone, and connective tissue strength are still important.' Also, changing your diet while on Ozempic to (1) cut down carbohydrate intake and (2) include more healthy protein (meat, eggs, fish, etc.), fats (nuts, olive oil, etc.) and fruits/veggie will supercharge your weight loss and your overall health gains.
• hnburnsy 2y ago
  Ozempic is just scratching the surface, the pipeline is bursting... >...combinations of GLP-1 with other entero-pancreatic hormones with complementary actions and/or synergistic potential (such as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), glucagon, and amylin) are under investigation to enhance the WL and cardiometabolic benefits of GLP-1 RA. I count 18 or so here... >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-024-01473-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-024-01473-y
  • jart 2y ago
    Thanks for sharing that link. Retatrutide looks especially promising since it targets three different receptors (GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon) instead of just GLP-1 like Ozempic. This triple action appears to have a more comprehensive effect on metabolism. So it may increase energy expenditure in addition to reducing calorie intake. This drug also showed significant improvements in lipid profiles, blood pressure, and liver fat reduction. If all goes well we should expect to have it in 3-4 years.
    • cthalupa 2y ago
      There are some concerns with retatrutide - it's popular among the bolder people willing to buy it as a research chemical, and both their reports and the clinical trials do show significantly higher resting heart rates as a common side effect. Not a huge deal for people that have good heart health already, but since obesity tends to cause poor heart health... I expect we'll still get it approved for weight loss use, but it'll be one that is going to take more observation on the patients using it
• at_a_remove 2y ago
  I long for something that would help me. I have a rare metabolic disorder where the recommendation is high carbohydrates, very high, and to never diet. Even a ten percent reduction in caloric intake can end in hospitalization, during which I am put on a frankly enormous amount of glucose or sucrose, among other things. The end result has been an insidious weight gain. Exercise? Well, aside from the fact that you can't outrun your fork, it sets off the same metabolic pathways that caloric restriction does and I am back to square one.
• switch007 2y ago
  Stupid question but I wonder if the side-effects are a partial contributor to its success: feeling nauseous, upset stomachs, bloating, acid reflux etc? And are there similar, cheaper supplements/drugs that can induce nausea etc? I know my appetite falls off a cliff if I'm nauseous/have an upset stomach/suffering from reflux.
  • hippich 2y ago
    From my experience, it is probably contributing, but certainly not the major way glp-1 work. And I certainly had periods where I would overeat while already feeling bloated or nauseated. Glp-1 certainly does something to the body, that regulate eating on hormonal or neuronal level.
• ornornor 2y ago
  FWIW, junk food makers are thinking up new ways to stay relevant and still sell a modified version of their junk foods adapted to people on GLP-1 medicine… Nestle, Mondelez, etc are all scrambling to do so. Here is an article (in French) on the matter: https://www.letemps.ch/economie/ozempic-wegovy-mounjaro-nestle-adapte-ses-produits-a-un-monde-qui-grignote-de-moins-en-moins https://www.letemps.ch/economie/ozempic-wegovy-mounjaro-nest...
• martin82 2y ago
  Don't think the hype will last long at all, since this ridiculous drug has extremely bad side effects, and works by enriching the body with millions of small fat cells that are all ready to blow up the moment you stop taking the drug. Or in orher words, it's a trap. If you take it, you have to take it forever and suffer extreme side effects, if you stop taking it, you will turn into a fat pig, worse than before, and you gained nothing. It absolutely boggles my mind to always see Americans swallow everything and anything that big pharma serves them. It's insane behaviour.
  • Rnonymous 2y ago
    What side effects? Blowing up fat cells? I was "find this page" for side effects, but see little discussion about them. So am honestly intrigued, and would love to hear more.
    • profmarshmellow 2y ago
      It disables your stomach... its like taking PPIs for gerd only to later find out the problem was low stomach acid and now your acid production capability has been permanently damaged by meds
• ropable 2y ago
  Up until the point where our modern food environment changes radically - the more people who need it and can take it, the better.
• sirsinsalot 2y ago
  Seems to me this drug is an antidote for an unregulated capitalist system creating an environment that preys on the human condition and as a result makes people unhealthy. It's just now selling you the antidote to the problems it made. Profit.
• grimblee 2y ago
  The absurdity of creating a drug to curb obesity instead of forcing industrials to make food healthier. The ravage of corruption, sorry lobbying, still killing us all for greed.
• bravetraveler 2y ago
  Eternity, unless it's pumped into the water supply
• wwarner 2y ago
  Love this forecasting methodology
• fredgrott 2y ago
  Okay, how I found out about berberine being over the counter...this medical article and study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34981502/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34981502/ Imagine only spending $11 with no side effects to spending $300 and up with major side effects.....
• hippich 2y ago
  One trend I noticed, whenever this topic is discussed in public forums, it attracts a lot of negativity from "just exercise and eat less" crowd (generalizing here). I wonder why it caused so much negative reaction? On the surface it shouldn't matter much, since it does not appear to harm ones who found a way to maintain healthy body without drugs. Yet it reliably causes a quite noticable number of folks to be quite aggressive towards either people using these drugs or companies making these. (Similar trend can be seen in other drugs like THC for example)?
  • GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
    Personally, I'd never take Ozempic. I agree it definitely makes the 'eat less' goal achievable almost automatically for most people. But I think there's a real downside which is that any rapid weight loss will take muscle and bone density with it. Typically when you're using exercise to lose weight, you'll naturally end up building some muscle mass back. I think the side effects for people who take the drug and stay sedentary is going to be disastrous.
  • sp527 2y ago
    > I wonder why it caused so much negative reaction? On the surface it shouldn't matter much, since it does not appear to harm ones who found a way to maintain healthy body without drugs. Yet it reliably causes a quite noticable number of folks to be quite aggressive towards either people using these drugs or companies making these. It's a combination of people thinking it violates the 'no free lunch' axiom of the universe and also deriving significant personal status and satisfaction from exerting discipline in eating and exercising religiously. The 'no free lunch' axiom is a curious thing and seems derivative of western Puritanism and similar philosophies. It violates many people's intuitions that very good things might be obtained with relative ease, and also devalues said things. Some of these are the same people who cannot comprehend (or even accept) a post-singularity world without work. The peculiar morality that produces that belief overlaps rather substantially with the one that rejects the possibility of an easy solution to the problem of obesity. Further, some of these people have the (perhaps unconscious) belief that they are morally superior to others who are less dedicated to health and fitness, and in particular to the obese. If obesity can be resolved so fluidly and categorically, then at least two painful things happen for them: (1) their excessive effort towards weight control seems foolish and inefficient (i.e. devalued, as noted above) and (2) they lose a great deal of personal status. The latter is a consequence of the reasonably established notion that a significant proportion of many peoples' happiness is contingent on their relative frames of reference (i.e. not their position in an absolute sense). Again, this is often unconscious. These are not "bad" people, but rather merely victims of human instinct.
• cdrini 2y ago
  Obesity rates are on the rise in all modern countries, and although the rate of growth is different, in no country does it show any signs of slowing down. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-as-obese?tab=chart&country=USA~GBR~BRA~IND~AUS~NGA~CAN~ALB~FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a... Are these drugs good? I'm not sure, but I think a lot of these drugs seem to be reducing how much people eat -- helping people break from the life time of bad habits they've learned since childhood from their parents/friend/media/fast food industry. I don't know if eating habits in childhood can embed themselves as permanent alterations to the person's biology, like myopia in eye sight. But if it does, then these drugs might be the "glasses" equivalent for metabolism/eating. Citation needed. But if so, then let's see if we can learn from our mistake with how glasses are perscribed, and instead of leaving children in the same environment that results in the development of the same diagnosis which will then require them to also take ozempic/use glasses/etc, and instead raise them so that they never develop the problem in the first place. Note: even the myopia link is still being researched I believe, but more papers seem to be showing this potential relationship. Variables: - unhappiness increasing (citation needed) - low income people buy cheap, processed food - middle class people eat out at restaurants more since they can afford it - upper class people likely the healthiest? - unhealthy processed foods have become regular standard snacks (eg chips, cola) taking the place of healthy snacks like fruits/veg - portion size increases in the home and at restaurants - the fast food industries incentive to get people to eat more - people developing bad eating habits at young ages, which are significantly harder to break later in life and could potentially result in permanent changes to metabolism (similar to how myopia has been linked to children spending a lot of time inside/books/screens) - low availability of healthy fresh food -- when was the last time you got fruit as a snack in the middle of the day? Or for dessert? - reduced mobility; sitting jobs, order to your door, work from home
  • cdrini 2y ago
    Some chat GPT research on some of the citation needed claims. There are some potential biological pathways, but more research needed to verify if/how these are actually applicable: https://chatgpt.com/share/670a798d-6abc-8012-bbf8-3b55a09f0b32 https://chatgpt.com/share/670a798d-6abc-8012-bbf8-3b55a09f0b...
• LinuxBender 2y ago
  How long til we're all on Ozempic? Just my own preference but I stopped doing tinker drugs some time ago and focus on things that make semi-permanent changes even if they are much smaller incremental changes. I call any drug that tinkers with feedback loops a tinker drug. An example for me personal was hypertension. I focused on finding the root cause which took a long time but now if I can't get a hold of the things I used to make changes I don't have to worry about a hard rebound swing back to and beyond where I was, something that BP drugs did when I could not get a hold of the drugs because of doctors screwing with me. For weight I went with Berberine, prolonged fasting and paleo. It's slow but steady and for me personally slow and steady has been winning the race without side effects. That's just my methodological preference and not meant to be any form or fashion of advice for anyone else. I support people doing whatever they find works for them. This was just my long way of answering the question.
• indigo0086 2y ago
  Not a surprised that in the land of the obese (mostly by choice), weight loss poison is deemed a miracle drug
• AbstractH24 2y ago
  We were having the same discussion 5-10 years ago about Metformin. Just saying