6 ms·

The concern regarding a drug as a crutch is stil valid. Smokers/drinkers may deal with stress by smoking/drinking. After cessation, ways to deal with stress nee

The concern regarding a drug as a crutch is stil valid. Smokers/drinkers may deal with stress by smoking/drinking. After cessation, ways to deal with stress need to be learned from a new. "Addiction" is ambiguous and a term almost better not used. "Addiction" may constitute chemical dependency but can also be largely a set of habits. A set of habits and lifestyle are pretty much the same thing.

cbsmith 2y ago
> The concern regarding a drug as a crutch is stil valid. People with pacemakers can't get off of them either, but it doesn't have the same stigma. Diabetics often need regular insulin injections, but it doesn't have the same stigma. People with high-blood pressure often need regular medication, but it doesn't have the same stigma. It's mostly antidepressants and now Ozempic which have this stigma. > A set of habits and lifestyle are pretty much the same thing. I believe the DSM does not consider them "pretty much the same thing".
namaria 2y ago
'Anew' is an adverb: learn anew. 'Learn from a new' is missing an object.
CydeWeys 2y ago
The problem is that calling it a "crutch" is already presupposing a negative judgment of it. Use a neutral word; e.g. it is a weight loss aid.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Some things simply are negative, and masking behind a neutral word makes the neutral word perceived as negative over time. Masking reality is not a good way to work within it nor modify it.
  - farrarstan 2y ago
    [dead]
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    What's the explanation for why GLP1 medications are negative things? There are a very minor subset of people that have some medically significant adverse reactions, but it is VERY small. We don't have any evidence to my knowledge of any long term risks with being on it.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      > We don't have any evidence to my knowledge of any long term risks with being on it. Nobody has yet been on these drugs for an entire lifetime - which is what is being advocated in this thread.
      - cthalupa 2y ago
        Sure. But what's the proposed mechanism? For many - not all, obviously - medications, we have an understanding of potential long term risks. Animal studies catch some of them, others we know are potentially risky even without animal studies, e.g. drugs that increase angiogenesis have a risk of increasing tumor growth. But no one has proposed mechanisms for GLP1 peptides. Meanwhile, we know obesity is one of the largest long term risks to health in existence, and one of the most prevalent.
        throwup238 2y ago
        > But no one has proposed mechanisms for GLP1 peptides. I'm worried about long term malnutrition leading to significant loss of muscle mass, osteoporosis, and other deficiencies that eventually lead to infirmity and brings forward the immobility death spiral much earlier in late age through weak muscles and bones. Most of the long term studies on GLP-1 agonists that I've reviewed have been on diabetic patients who already had to carefully control their diets and we still don't know what decades of poor diet on Ozempic will do. For very obese people the tradeoff is still pretty damn good though.
        DANmode 2y ago
        As long as they don't use their brains to any high performing degree.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    If someone has a broken leg, the word "crutch" isn't derogatory in the first place. Cessation tools are not negative. Yes, root causes of abuse should be addressed, but aids are aids.
    - CydeWeys 2y ago
      Crutch (n) a : a support typically fitting under the armpit for use by the disabled in walking b : a source or means of support or assistance that is relied on heavily or excessively Use a is a neutral, non-judgmental, literal use of the word. Use b is clearly a pejorative, judgmental, metaphorical use of the word. The two are not the same.
      - collingreen 2y ago
        Is this an argument that you should use crutch and everyone ever will always read it as version b? It might be more good faith to just pick language that is more clear. The alternative feels a lot like pretending to be one thing while trying to make people think something else - it rings just like a bad faith "Im just asking questions"
        seadan83 2y ago
        I'm a bit confused. Would you mind clarifying whether you think using "crutch" is the more clear vocabulary, or whether alternative vocabulary would be more clear?
        CydeWeys 2y ago
        To be clear, version a is referring to literal (non-metaphorical) crutches, and is not the version being used here because GLP-1 agonists are not literal crutches. Version b is the only possible use of the word being used in this conversation, and is always pejorative. "Oh, you broke your foot, you're getting around on a crutch" = Always version A, literal, non-pejorative. "Oh, you're obese, you're using medicine as a crutch to cure it" = Always version B, metaphorical, pejorative. There's no confusion.
      - 2y ago
  - CydeWeys 2y ago
    Some things simply are negative, sure. I think we can all agree that murder is negative on the whole, for example. But you are making a HUGE leap here in assuming that GLP1 agonists "simply are negative". You have not remotely supported this logical leap. All studies in fact have shown that GLP1 agonists are significantly positive: That they improve health, reduce obesity, reduce all-cause mortality, etc. You are denying observed reality across a large number of double blinded, objective clinical trials.
    - jajko 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - borski 2y ago
        It is easy to call taking the medication easy, but nothing about it actually is. Eating right, lifting, trying to be active… all of that on top of the nausea created by the medication itself. Obesity is such a massive epidemic, and shaming people into feeling bad about it has clearly not worked. And that’s before you consider the genetic factors, environmental factors, food deserts, and the other dozen reasons it’s so hard to stay fit for some people. I am genetically gifted in some ways; an athlete’s metabolism was not one of them. I can be extremely disciplined, but the constant vigilance creates this “food noise” in your head that’s hard to explain, but extremely stressful, and causes you to constantly be seeking the next meal. It used to be that every single food I put in my mouth tasted amazing (within reason). Apparently this is not true for everyone, and they have a greater and sharper distinction between “foods that are amazing” and “foods that are just fine”. That distinction exists for me now, and never really did before this medication. There are so many ways it has helped me. My blood labs are perfect, and my liver was definitely not perfect before. My A1C was just on the cusp of prediabetic, at 5.7%. My triglycerides, ALT, AST… all were wayyyyy higher than they should have been. A1C at last test a few months ago was 5.0%, and all the other numbers are well within low-mid range of where they should be. Anyone that looks at someone using GLP-1 medications and thinks they’re “cheating” is a child. You still have to put in the work; you still have to eat right and work out and lift. It just makes it actually possible to do that for the first time in many people’s lives. I don’t know if you’ve ever put on a realistic “fat suit,” but trust me when I say that everything is harder when you’re heavier. A walk around the block is an insane workout if you are 450lbs and haven’t walked in years. It’s not where you should end, but it is a start, and if there is a medication that helps someone start… everyone else can fuck right off. You will never find me shaming someone else or judging them for getting healthy, which is the actual point more than just losing weight. There is one way to get off the medication in the future (or get on the lowest dose, etc): build significant muscle mass. That’s why it’s so important to lift. One common argument I’ve heard against GLP-1 meds is the idea that you’ll have to be on the meds forever. And for some people, maybe even most, that may be true. We don’t know yet. But you know what’s worse than being on a GLP-1 med forever? Being obese forever. We know precisely just how that kills so many of us. But you’re right, we should just go back to the way it was. That seemed to work just fine. :/
  - nswest23 2y ago
    All these people are calling it a crutch are moralizing tongue clicking, holier than thou Calvinists who think you shouldn’t be able to be thin unless you bootstrapped yourself to thinness with your own blood sweat and tears, as though this viewpoint represents some abstract understanding of the world instead of merely a smug sense of self righteousness.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      Crutches allow broken legs to heal properly. It could be that some simply don't have that same strong negative connotation. What is more, getting hung up on the wording is missing the larger point.
  - ab5tract 2y ago
    Is using glasses to see a crutch? Asking as someone who needs them as much as I need the prescribed-for-life medications I’ve been prescribed.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      Reflecting on this, I think that 'for-life' aspect is very key. A 'seeing aid' vs 'seeing crutch'. Crutches are usually meant to be temporary. A walking stick is the walking aid equivalent. Hence, for weight loss, is medication meant to be the life long solution? As a facilitator to move the needle for people - very helpful. The underlying question about lifestyle and habits never changing is where the life long crutch concern comes in.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
  Crutch and “weight loss aid” aren’t synonymous at all. You can’t ask someone to use a word that has a less negative connotation if they mean completely different things. They intentionally said crutch because they’re specifically talking about people who use it as a crutch. Not people who just use it as a weight loss aid.
golol 2y ago
What's wrong eith a medicine as a crutch? If you break your leg you use a damn crutch and that's good. If you suffer from an illness and we have a medicine that's worse than the illness and affordable - go for it. Phrasing it as a crutch suggests it is somehow only a temporary that prevents you from finding a "real" solution by changing your "lifestyle". It doesn't matter, only outcomes matter.
- names_are_hard 2y ago
  Agreed. After I broke leg the physical therapist saw me walking without aids and said I should go back to using a cane and explained that I'll heal better and faster if I use help than if I don't. Made me realize that the expression "using x as a crutch" doesn't make sense if it's supposed to imply that x is an impediment to progress.

cbsmith 2y ago

> The concern regarding a drug as a crutch is stil valid. People with pacemakers can't get off of them either, but it doesn't have the same stigma. Diabetics often need regular insulin injections, but it doesn't have the same stigma. People with high-blood pressure often need regular medication, but it doesn't have the same stigma. It's mostly antidepressants and now Ozempic which have this stigma. > A set of habits and lifestyle are pretty much the same thing. I believe the DSM does not consider them "pretty much the same thing".

namaria 2y ago

'Anew' is an adverb: learn anew. 'Learn from a new' is missing an object.

CydeWeys 2y ago

The problem is that calling it a "crutch" is already presupposing a negative judgment of it. Use a neutral word; e.g. it is a weight loss aid.

tomrod 2y ago
Some things simply are negative, and masking behind a neutral word makes the neutral word perceived as negative over time. Masking reality is not a good way to work within it nor modify it.
- farrarstan 2y ago
  [dead]
- cthalupa 2y ago
  What's the explanation for why GLP1 medications are negative things? There are a very minor subset of people that have some medically significant adverse reactions, but it is VERY small. We don't have any evidence to my knowledge of any long term risks with being on it.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    > We don't have any evidence to my knowledge of any long term risks with being on it. Nobody has yet been on these drugs for an entire lifetime - which is what is being advocated in this thread.
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      Sure. But what's the proposed mechanism? For many - not all, obviously - medications, we have an understanding of potential long term risks. Animal studies catch some of them, others we know are potentially risky even without animal studies, e.g. drugs that increase angiogenesis have a risk of increasing tumor growth. But no one has proposed mechanisms for GLP1 peptides. Meanwhile, we know obesity is one of the largest long term risks to health in existence, and one of the most prevalent.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        > But no one has proposed mechanisms for GLP1 peptides. I'm worried about long term malnutrition leading to significant loss of muscle mass, osteoporosis, and other deficiencies that eventually lead to infirmity and brings forward the immobility death spiral much earlier in late age through weak muscles and bones. Most of the long term studies on GLP-1 agonists that I've reviewed have been on diabetic patients who already had to carefully control their diets and we still don't know what decades of poor diet on Ozempic will do. For very obese people the tradeoff is still pretty damn good though.
        DANmode 2y ago
        As long as they don't use their brains to any high performing degree.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  If someone has a broken leg, the word "crutch" isn't derogatory in the first place. Cessation tools are not negative. Yes, root causes of abuse should be addressed, but aids are aids.
  - CydeWeys 2y ago
    Crutch (n) a : a support typically fitting under the armpit for use by the disabled in walking b : a source or means of support or assistance that is relied on heavily or excessively Use a is a neutral, non-judgmental, literal use of the word. Use b is clearly a pejorative, judgmental, metaphorical use of the word. The two are not the same.
    - collingreen 2y ago
      Is this an argument that you should use crutch and everyone ever will always read it as version b? It might be more good faith to just pick language that is more clear. The alternative feels a lot like pretending to be one thing while trying to make people think something else - it rings just like a bad faith "Im just asking questions"
      - seadan83 2y ago
        I'm a bit confused. Would you mind clarifying whether you think using "crutch" is the more clear vocabulary, or whether alternative vocabulary would be more clear?
      - CydeWeys 2y ago
        To be clear, version a is referring to literal (non-metaphorical) crutches, and is not the version being used here because GLP-1 agonists are not literal crutches. Version b is the only possible use of the word being used in this conversation, and is always pejorative. "Oh, you broke your foot, you're getting around on a crutch" = Always version A, literal, non-pejorative. "Oh, you're obese, you're using medicine as a crutch to cure it" = Always version B, metaphorical, pejorative. There's no confusion.
    - 2y ago
- CydeWeys 2y ago
  Some things simply are negative, sure. I think we can all agree that murder is negative on the whole, for example. But you are making a HUGE leap here in assuming that GLP1 agonists "simply are negative". You have not remotely supported this logical leap. All studies in fact have shown that GLP1 agonists are significantly positive: That they improve health, reduce obesity, reduce all-cause mortality, etc. You are denying observed reality across a large number of double blinded, objective clinical trials.
  - jajko 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - borski 2y ago
      It is easy to call taking the medication easy, but nothing about it actually is. Eating right, lifting, trying to be active… all of that on top of the nausea created by the medication itself. Obesity is such a massive epidemic, and shaming people into feeling bad about it has clearly not worked. And that’s before you consider the genetic factors, environmental factors, food deserts, and the other dozen reasons it’s so hard to stay fit for some people. I am genetically gifted in some ways; an athlete’s metabolism was not one of them. I can be extremely disciplined, but the constant vigilance creates this “food noise” in your head that’s hard to explain, but extremely stressful, and causes you to constantly be seeking the next meal. It used to be that every single food I put in my mouth tasted amazing (within reason). Apparently this is not true for everyone, and they have a greater and sharper distinction between “foods that are amazing” and “foods that are just fine”. That distinction exists for me now, and never really did before this medication. There are so many ways it has helped me. My blood labs are perfect, and my liver was definitely not perfect before. My A1C was just on the cusp of prediabetic, at 5.7%. My triglycerides, ALT, AST… all were wayyyyy higher than they should have been. A1C at last test a few months ago was 5.0%, and all the other numbers are well within low-mid range of where they should be. Anyone that looks at someone using GLP-1 medications and thinks they’re “cheating” is a child. You still have to put in the work; you still have to eat right and work out and lift. It just makes it actually possible to do that for the first time in many people’s lives. I don’t know if you’ve ever put on a realistic “fat suit,” but trust me when I say that everything is harder when you’re heavier. A walk around the block is an insane workout if you are 450lbs and haven’t walked in years. It’s not where you should end, but it is a start, and if there is a medication that helps someone start… everyone else can fuck right off. You will never find me shaming someone else or judging them for getting healthy, which is the actual point more than just losing weight. There is one way to get off the medication in the future (or get on the lowest dose, etc): build significant muscle mass. That’s why it’s so important to lift. One common argument I’ve heard against GLP-1 meds is the idea that you’ll have to be on the meds forever. And for some people, maybe even most, that may be true. We don’t know yet. But you know what’s worse than being on a GLP-1 med forever? Being obese forever. We know precisely just how that kills so many of us. But you’re right, we should just go back to the way it was. That seemed to work just fine. :/
- nswest23 2y ago
  All these people are calling it a crutch are moralizing tongue clicking, holier than thou Calvinists who think you shouldn’t be able to be thin unless you bootstrapped yourself to thinness with your own blood sweat and tears, as though this viewpoint represents some abstract understanding of the world instead of merely a smug sense of self righteousness.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Crutches allow broken legs to heal properly. It could be that some simply don't have that same strong negative connotation. What is more, getting hung up on the wording is missing the larger point.
- ab5tract 2y ago
  Is using glasses to see a crutch? Asking as someone who needs them as much as I need the prescribed-for-life medications I’ve been prescribed.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Reflecting on this, I think that 'for-life' aspect is very key. A 'seeing aid' vs 'seeing crutch'. Crutches are usually meant to be temporary. A walking stick is the walking aid equivalent. Hence, for weight loss, is medication meant to be the life long solution? As a facilitator to move the needle for people - very helpful. The underlying question about lifestyle and habits never changing is where the life long crutch concern comes in.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
Crutch and “weight loss aid” aren’t synonymous at all. You can’t ask someone to use a word that has a less negative connotation if they mean completely different things. They intentionally said crutch because they’re specifically talking about people who use it as a crutch. Not people who just use it as a weight loss aid.

golol 2y ago

What's wrong eith a medicine as a crutch? If you break your leg you use a damn crutch and that's good. If you suffer from an illness and we have a medicine that's worse than the illness and affordable - go for it. Phrasing it as a crutch suggests it is somehow only a temporary that prevents you from finding a "real" solution by changing your "lifestyle". It doesn't matter, only outcomes matter.

names_are_hard 2y ago
Agreed. After I broke leg the physical therapist saw me walking without aids and said I should go back to using a cane and explained that I'll heal better and faster if I use help than if I don't. Made me realize that the expression "using x as a crutch" doesn't make sense if it's supposed to imply that x is an impediment to progress.