8 ms·

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 certain

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!
    - MBCook 2y ago
      I wasn’t talking about nutrients at all. I was referring to the problems of over processed foods with lots of chemicals to increase shelf life and improve color and make them more addictive. I’m not against Ozempic. But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion. If this accidentally prevents that discussion, I think that’s a problem. I’m not suggesting any change to the drug’s availability. Only concern over an important discussion.
      - Blackthorn 2y ago
        > But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion. It's been forty years, how much longer would it take to admit that's not happening?
        MBCook 2y ago
        Maybe it’s naïve. But it’s getting harder and harder to ignore, and worse and worse. As we export our food to more and more places, it starts to happen to them. I hear about people who take trips to Europe. They eat a ton, feel better, and lose weight. They get back home, start eating food here (even healthy food) and feel worse again. Gain it back despite eating less. We’ve tried ignoring it. We’ve tried blaming genetics, character, fat in foods, sugar, and willpower. But none of those have explained/fixed it. Because I don’t think that’s the problem. I want the evidence to keep piling up. I don’t want anyone to suffer unnecessarily, but I don’t want a new excuse to stop progress again. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But if we give up the chance for the debate because a new miracle drug “solved“ it nothing will change.
- giantg2 2y ago
  And the argument you are replying to is that it's just covering up a symptom and not addressing the root problem holistically. Ozempic isn't a fix, it's a bandaid.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Bandaids serve a genuinely useful health-promoting purpose. I suspect we'll find the same is true of GLP-1s even if it only addresses part of the entire problem.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Only when applied correctly and with other interventions. Using ozempic without diet and exercise changes is like putting a bandaid on a .5" deep wound without sterilizing it.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        because ozempic reduces the food cravings, patients are able to implement and stick with a diet change. it's not like "put down that cheeseburger and have a salad" is something they haven't heard before and haven't internalized already, it's just their brain won't do it. ozempic gives them the space on their brain to actually do it.
      - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
        The drug works by suppressing appetite. Eating less of the same things is still a dietary change. Exercise is recommended for everyone, regardless of weight.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Sure, but so what? Until we can permanently change aspects of our brain, like our proclivity for addiction, then all interventions are bandaids on top of an underlying problem. Even behavioral changes like avoiding fast food don't fix the underlying problem in your brain. It's topical. It's amazing how the subject of Ozempic brings out such trivial claims uttered with a serious face.
- jprete 2y ago
  Ozempic does not simply limit your appetite, it seems to also affect how much reward your brain feels from different foods (and activities!), which would make it easier to override those anticipated rewards with conscious choices.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
From my understanding GLP-1 agonists can actually modulate the reward pathway reducing people's appetite for toxic diets. We're not socially caught up yet to this information. I suspect there are folks who believe that regardless of similar outcome (reduction of toxic diet), that changing diet without medication is superior to those who change their behavior through pharmacological intervention. It's like the pre-1990s view on depression or anxiety - chemical intervention is a moral weakness.
- andrewmcwatters 2y ago
  You can literally do the same thing by eating a healthy diet for 2-4 weeks.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    That's a trivial claim about any medication that changes behavior. You can achieve the same thing that the medication does by "just" having different behavior.
    - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
      Have you considered that maybe it is an evolutionary trait that it is hard to do certain things? That the people who can expend the effort and discipline, perhaps have a better configuration than those that can’t or don’t?
      - hombre_fatal 2y ago
        Sure. People say the same thing about ADHD. The question is how a trait fares in the modern world. Maybe a trait was useful to an ancestor but not to you today trying to navigate a calorie rich world of convenience. Just like a trait useful to a nomadic hunter might work against you when you're expected to sit at a desk job if you want to make the money necessary to fulfill your ambitions. It may very well be the case that we end up medicating away traits that were useful at some point in our lineage but not today. I just don't see how it matters much beyond the thought exercise.
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
There's a decent amount of evidence that the most toxic thing about modern diets is their amounts: calorie counts and such. Many things (sugars, ultra-processed foods (ugh I hate the NOVA classification), fat, etc) are fine in moderation. The dose makes the poison.
Fernicia 2y ago
Is it fundamentally any different from something like toothpaste? Humans have created a technology (mechanised farming) with a side effect we haven't yet evolved to handle (an abundance of tasty calories), so it doesn't seem all that strange we would fix it with a technology (inhibiting the desire for said calories).
lostmsu 2y ago
I think your statement is very funny. If the drug keeps weight in check on a toxic diet and that has the same outcome as "healthy life", then is that "healthy life" any more healthy then the drug+junkfood combo? Also, what is sad about it?
dr_dshiv 2y ago
It’s not clear to me that this is the case. People in the Netherlands eat such shit food — but they are so healthy because they move a lot and aren’t obese. I’m not sure that food quality is as important as we sometimes hope it is (after all, we pay for quality)
intothemild 2y ago
I've been on wegovy for almost two years now, and I can attest to how much you just DONT want to eat junk anymore. It's one of the most commonly talked about things we discuss with other users over the last few years. That and lower want to drink, and gaining back so much of energy/time due to not having to think about food every 3 seconds of the day. I'm super satisfied just having an apple or two now. The "omg I need to eat, ohh a burger" is gone.
- chankstein38 2y ago
  I'm not arguing at all here but just wanted to say, I've noticed similar effects just focusing on eating healthier over the last few years. I haven't taken anything to help I just wanted to stop eating poorly and now adays it's not "shove the entire box of cookies in my mouth" it's "have 1 cookie and don't finish it because it's too rich" and I haven't eaten fast food in as long as I can remember. I used to see a McDonald's french fry commercial or just think about them and need McDonald's. Now I see it and go "ah they were good but eh" and move on with my life. Glad you're seeing benefits like that!
snarf21 2y ago
Serious question: Why not make toxic diet illegal or cost prohibitive? Lots of manufactured food is designed to be more addictive. Then add in constant advertising bombardment targeted at kids. Why is there up to double the sugar in US bread and soda versus Europe?
- steveBK123 2y ago
  The politics of legislating diet are very fraught, let alone the implementation is incredible complicated. Even blue state dem voters I know used to whinge about Michelle Obama and her veggies lol.
cyberax 2y ago
> basically toxic diet This is a bullshit term. Even fast food is not "toxic", it's just calorie-dense. I got overweight eating nothing but "healthy" diet because I have never _liked_ fast food.
petesergeant 2y ago
> while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet It's a pretty sadder fact that people just make these wild assertions. Everyone I know (which is about 10 people in real life, myself included) who's used a GLP-1 drug found that they eat healthier because they've less desire for shittier food.
outworlder 2y ago
> while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet. Had to scroll too far to find this. It's a great synergy isn't it? The food industry creates calorie concoctions that can barely be called food, are dirt cheap to make and rakes in profits. People get sick. The pharmaceutical industry sells drugs are stupid high profit margins so that people can keep on living. It is not a conspiracy, but it's a good feedback loop for corporations. All that money allow them to flood the scientific community with their sponsored studies, dominate news broadcasts (confusing consumers) and even influence the food pyramid, which is almost upside down. I've been on a slow quest to improve health and lose weight. It's really, really slow, far slower than what most people would like. But cutting added sugars to zero (including and most especially high fructose corn syrup) gave almost immediate benefits that kept me going. Sugars (and carbs in general) make you retain a lot of water. Cut those, and you'll see a major difference in the scale in a couple of weeks. Is it mostly water(but not entirely!) Yes. It doesn't matter, our lizard brains interpret that as success. That also reduces hunger, which is a positive feedback loop.

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!
  - MBCook 2y ago
    I wasn’t talking about nutrients at all. I was referring to the problems of over processed foods with lots of chemicals to increase shelf life and improve color and make them more addictive. I’m not against Ozempic. But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion. If this accidentally prevents that discussion, I think that’s a problem. I’m not suggesting any change to the drug’s availability. Only concern over an important discussion.
    - Blackthorn 2y ago
      > But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion. It's been forty years, how much longer would it take to admit that's not happening?
      - MBCook 2y ago
        Maybe it’s naïve. But it’s getting harder and harder to ignore, and worse and worse. As we export our food to more and more places, it starts to happen to them. I hear about people who take trips to Europe. They eat a ton, feel better, and lose weight. They get back home, start eating food here (even healthy food) and feel worse again. Gain it back despite eating less. We’ve tried ignoring it. We’ve tried blaming genetics, character, fat in foods, sugar, and willpower. But none of those have explained/fixed it. Because I don’t think that’s the problem. I want the evidence to keep piling up. I don’t want anyone to suffer unnecessarily, but I don’t want a new excuse to stop progress again. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But if we give up the chance for the debate because a new miracle drug “solved“ it nothing will change.
giantg2 2y ago
And the argument you are replying to is that it's just covering up a symptom and not addressing the root problem holistically. Ozempic isn't a fix, it's a bandaid.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Bandaids serve a genuinely useful health-promoting purpose. I suspect we'll find the same is true of GLP-1s even if it only addresses part of the entire problem.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Only when applied correctly and with other interventions. Using ozempic without diet and exercise changes is like putting a bandaid on a .5" deep wound without sterilizing it.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      because ozempic reduces the food cravings, patients are able to implement and stick with a diet change. it's not like "put down that cheeseburger and have a salad" is something they haven't heard before and haven't internalized already, it's just their brain won't do it. ozempic gives them the space on their brain to actually do it.
    - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
      The drug works by suppressing appetite. Eating less of the same things is still a dietary change. Exercise is recommended for everyone, regardless of weight.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Sure, but so what? Until we can permanently change aspects of our brain, like our proclivity for addiction, then all interventions are bandaids on top of an underlying problem. Even behavioral changes like avoiding fast food don't fix the underlying problem in your brain. It's topical. It's amazing how the subject of Ozempic brings out such trivial claims uttered with a serious face.
jprete 2y ago
Ozempic does not simply limit your appetite, it seems to also affect how much reward your brain feels from different foods (and activities!), which would make it easier to override those anticipated rewards with conscious choices.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

From my understanding GLP-1 agonists can actually modulate the reward pathway reducing people's appetite for toxic diets. We're not socially caught up yet to this information. I suspect there are folks who believe that regardless of similar outcome (reduction of toxic diet), that changing diet without medication is superior to those who change their behavior through pharmacological intervention. It's like the pre-1990s view on depression or anxiety - chemical intervention is a moral weakness.

andrewmcwatters 2y ago
You can literally do the same thing by eating a healthy diet for 2-4 weeks.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  That's a trivial claim about any medication that changes behavior. You can achieve the same thing that the medication does by "just" having different behavior.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    Have you considered that maybe it is an evolutionary trait that it is hard to do certain things? That the people who can expend the effort and discipline, perhaps have a better configuration than those that can’t or don’t?
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      Sure. People say the same thing about ADHD. The question is how a trait fares in the modern world. Maybe a trait was useful to an ancestor but not to you today trying to navigate a calorie rich world of convenience. Just like a trait useful to a nomadic hunter might work against you when you're expected to sit at a desk job if you want to make the money necessary to fulfill your ambitions. It may very well be the case that we end up medicating away traits that were useful at some point in our lineage but not today. I just don't see how it matters much beyond the thought exercise.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

There's a decent amount of evidence that the most toxic thing about modern diets is their amounts: calorie counts and such. Many things (sugars, ultra-processed foods (ugh I hate the NOVA classification), fat, etc) are fine in moderation. The dose makes the poison.

Fernicia 2y ago

Is it fundamentally any different from something like toothpaste? Humans have created a technology (mechanised farming) with a side effect we haven't yet evolved to handle (an abundance of tasty calories), so it doesn't seem all that strange we would fix it with a technology (inhibiting the desire for said calories).

lostmsu 2y ago

I think your statement is very funny. If the drug keeps weight in check on a toxic diet and that has the same outcome as "healthy life", then is that "healthy life" any more healthy then the drug+junkfood combo? Also, what is sad about it?

dr_dshiv 2y ago

It’s not clear to me that this is the case. People in the Netherlands eat such shit food — but they are so healthy because they move a lot and aren’t obese. I’m not sure that food quality is as important as we sometimes hope it is (after all, we pay for quality)

intothemild 2y ago

I've been on wegovy for almost two years now, and I can attest to how much you just DONT want to eat junk anymore. It's one of the most commonly talked about things we discuss with other users over the last few years. That and lower want to drink, and gaining back so much of energy/time due to not having to think about food every 3 seconds of the day. I'm super satisfied just having an apple or two now. The "omg I need to eat, ohh a burger" is gone.

chankstein38 2y ago
I'm not arguing at all here but just wanted to say, I've noticed similar effects just focusing on eating healthier over the last few years. I haven't taken anything to help I just wanted to stop eating poorly and now adays it's not "shove the entire box of cookies in my mouth" it's "have 1 cookie and don't finish it because it's too rich" and I haven't eaten fast food in as long as I can remember. I used to see a McDonald's french fry commercial or just think about them and need McDonald's. Now I see it and go "ah they were good but eh" and move on with my life. Glad you're seeing benefits like that!

snarf21 2y ago

Serious question: Why not make toxic diet illegal or cost prohibitive? Lots of manufactured food is designed to be more addictive. Then add in constant advertising bombardment targeted at kids. Why is there up to double the sugar in US bread and soda versus Europe?

steveBK123 2y ago
The politics of legislating diet are very fraught, let alone the implementation is incredible complicated. Even blue state dem voters I know used to whinge about Michelle Obama and her veggies lol.

cyberax 2y ago

> basically toxic diet This is a bullshit term. Even fast food is not "toxic", it's just calorie-dense. I got overweight eating nothing but "healthy" diet because I have never _liked_ fast food.

petesergeant 2y ago

> while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet It's a pretty sadder fact that people just make these wild assertions. Everyone I know (which is about 10 people in real life, myself included) who's used a GLP-1 drug found that they eat healthier because they've less desire for shittier food.

outworlder 2y ago

> while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet. Had to scroll too far to find this. It's a great synergy isn't it? The food industry creates calorie concoctions that can barely be called food, are dirt cheap to make and rakes in profits. People get sick. The pharmaceutical industry sells drugs are stupid high profit margins so that people can keep on living. It is not a conspiracy, but it's a good feedback loop for corporations. All that money allow them to flood the scientific community with their sponsored studies, dominate news broadcasts (confusing consumers) and even influence the food pyramid, which is almost upside down. I've been on a slow quest to improve health and lose weight. It's really, really slow, far slower than what most people would like. But cutting added sugars to zero (including and most especially high fructose corn syrup) gave almost immediate benefits that kept me going. Sugars (and carbs in general) make you retain a lot of water. Cut those, and you'll see a major difference in the scale in a couple of weeks. Is it mostly water(but not entirely!) Yes. It doesn't matter, our lizard brains interpret that as success. That also reduces hunger, which is a positive feedback loop.