4 ms·

Are the long-term (>20 years) effects of taking GLP-1s really all that well understood? Because that's kind of what you're suggesting here. Making millions of

by arp242 1y ago

Are the long-term (>20 years) effects of taking GLP-1s really all that well understood? Because that's kind of what you're suggesting here. Making millions of people dependent on a drug to maintain basic health does not strike me as the best of ideas regardless. I understand why it's a good idea for many from an individual perspective and I'm not judging anyone, but from a societal perspective it does not seem like a reasonable solution.

Spivak 1y ago
Why not? We have an overweight and obesity epidemic that has persisted through everything else we've gotten enough political capital to try thus far. The "miracle" drug is the most promising direction we've had in a long time. Whatever possible adverse long term effects have to be (plausibility they actually happen) x (harm they cause) > known harms of being overweight. The scale of the solution is allowed to match the scale of the problem which is on the order of 2/3 of adults or 200,000,000 people.
- arp242 1y ago
  Well, don't say you weren't warned when it turns out the miracle is not such a miracle after all and it all massively backfires in a few decades, at which point you're still going to have to actually fix the real underlying causes.
  - romaaeterna 1y ago
    The class of drugs having a 2+ decade negative health effect greater than the negative health effect of obesity over the same period, without any obvious short-to-medium health effect, is likely to be small.
    - arp242 1y ago
      For obese people: probably. The overall health benefits for overweight people are a lot less clear. Being merely overweight (rather than obese) is not that strongly associated with negative health effects. Look, I hope you're right. If in 20 years time we look back at these comments and no negative effects have manifested then I'll happily buy you a beer to celebrate. Hell, I'll buy you an entire crate of beer. But I think this is one hell of a risk to take.
- freeplay 1y ago
  "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" The obesity trend has happened almost in lockstep with the proliferation of highly processed foods. Butter and animal fats being replaced with low quality, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Cane sugar being replaced with high fructose corn syrup and other highly processed sweeteners. Sodas and sugary juices replacing water. Food like substances with little to no nutritional value designed solely for taste and texture. These things are calorically dense while containing nothing the body needs to thrive (though the calories will allow it to survive). They are easy to eat in large amounts and leave you feeling hungry. And unfortunately, these are the most affordable and readily available foods in the United States. I don't think this is a conspiracy. It's just capitalism. These low quality ingredients are cheap and extremely shelf stable. In addition, the government subsidizes the production of this garbage. So to say obesity has persisted through everything we've tried is a bit backwards. It would be more accurate to say "a percentage of the population has managed to avoid obesity despite all of the things we've tried." - Make healthier food options more affordable and readily available - Better nutrition education - And if you really want to get the government involved, ban the use of some additives, oils, sweeteners, and dyes that allow the creation of many of these highly processed foods
  - Spivak 1y ago
    I agree with every word of your analysis and I agree that we've tried basically nothing. But this is why I talked about political capital—every one of your suggestions has been available for the last twenty years and nothing has come of it and the problem continues to get worse. When you say something like, "healthy food should be more affordable and readily available" you'll get a lot of nods of agreement but when it comes time to turn that idea into actual policy everyone gets cold feet. Proposals like price caps for whole foods, subsidies for meals that meet some threshold of healthy, sin taxes for unhealthy foods, outright bans of certain ingredients the votes dry right up. But people want Ozempic, they will actively seek it out, and in numbers that can actually make a dent in the problem. In a way that people don't seek out healthy alternatives or exercise. Because people don't want to be healthy, they want to be skinny. You can't control people, you can only respond to them and, ya know, whatever works man.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by arp242 1y ago

Spivak 1y ago

Why not? We have an overweight and obesity epidemic that has persisted through everything else we've gotten enough political capital to try thus far. The "miracle" drug is the most promising direction we've had in a long time. Whatever possible adverse long term effects have to be (plausibility they actually happen) x (harm they cause) > known harms of being overweight. The scale of the solution is allowed to match the scale of the problem which is on the order of 2/3 of adults or 200,000,000 people.

arp242 1y ago
Well, don't say you weren't warned when it turns out the miracle is not such a miracle after all and it all massively backfires in a few decades, at which point you're still going to have to actually fix the real underlying causes.
- romaaeterna 1y ago
  The class of drugs having a 2+ decade negative health effect greater than the negative health effect of obesity over the same period, without any obvious short-to-medium health effect, is likely to be small.
  - arp242 1y ago
    For obese people: probably. The overall health benefits for overweight people are a lot less clear. Being merely overweight (rather than obese) is not that strongly associated with negative health effects. Look, I hope you're right. If in 20 years time we look back at these comments and no negative effects have manifested then I'll happily buy you a beer to celebrate. Hell, I'll buy you an entire crate of beer. But I think this is one hell of a risk to take.
freeplay 1y ago
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" The obesity trend has happened almost in lockstep with the proliferation of highly processed foods. Butter and animal fats being replaced with low quality, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Cane sugar being replaced with high fructose corn syrup and other highly processed sweeteners. Sodas and sugary juices replacing water. Food like substances with little to no nutritional value designed solely for taste and texture. These things are calorically dense while containing nothing the body needs to thrive (though the calories will allow it to survive). They are easy to eat in large amounts and leave you feeling hungry. And unfortunately, these are the most affordable and readily available foods in the United States. I don't think this is a conspiracy. It's just capitalism. These low quality ingredients are cheap and extremely shelf stable. In addition, the government subsidizes the production of this garbage. So to say obesity has persisted through everything we've tried is a bit backwards. It would be more accurate to say "a percentage of the population has managed to avoid obesity despite all of the things we've tried." - Make healthier food options more affordable and readily available - Better nutrition education - And if you really want to get the government involved, ban the use of some additives, oils, sweeteners, and dyes that allow the creation of many of these highly processed foods
- Spivak 1y ago
  I agree with every word of your analysis and I agree that we've tried basically nothing. But this is why I talked about political capital—every one of your suggestions has been available for the last twenty years and nothing has come of it and the problem continues to get worse. When you say something like, "healthy food should be more affordable and readily available" you'll get a lot of nods of agreement but when it comes time to turn that idea into actual policy everyone gets cold feet. Proposals like price caps for whole foods, subsidies for meals that meet some threshold of healthy, sin taxes for unhealthy foods, outright bans of certain ingredients the votes dry right up. But people want Ozempic, they will actively seek it out, and in numbers that can actually make a dent in the problem. In a way that people don't seek out healthy alternatives or exercise. Because people don't want to be healthy, they want to be skinny. You can't control people, you can only respond to them and, ya know, whatever works man.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]