The problem with this (and all diet plans/drugs) is the lifestyle that led to problem in the first place.
If you do not change your lifestyle, for real and not just superficially, then you will relapse with a vengeance.
That is to say, be careful with using a drug as a crutch. Sure, it can artificially make you much more interested in not consuming so many calories and/or perhaps being more active than before - but you have to continue that lifestyle after stopping the drug.
Will Ozempic users have developed the personal discipline to prevent themselves from relapse without the drug - or will they forever be on a the yo-yo of weight gain/loss?
> Will Ozempic users have developed the personal discipline to prevent themselves from relapse without the drug - or will they forever be on a the yo-yo of weight gain/loss?
Have alcoholics using Naltrexone? Or opioid addicts using Methadone, or smokers using nicotine gum/patches?
See I'm bringing this up to point out the obvious double standard, people suffering from food addiction (i.e. literally the high from food) or binge-eating disorder, who finally have an effective treatment, are treated like it isn't addiction or illness, but a "lifestyle," but if you said this stuff about any other addiction people would call you out and be horrified.
For people mildy overweight or accidentally obese, it is a wildly different illness for people with lifetime problems who have lost/regained weight tens of times and likely know more about nutrition than most healthy-weight people ever will.
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.
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.
I just keep following your comments down the page and giving you upvotes.
I think folks using drugs (or meditation or habits or diet or any other thing) to intentionally make their life better is amazing and should be celebrated.
If some things are easy for you but not others try to be grateful for yourself without having to be petty or wanting others to be worse off.
To be clear, I don't think GLP1 agonists are "negative." I think the blend of environmental, food supply, and other factors that led many adults, in the US and elsewhere, to need obesity intervention is the negative. GLP1 agonists are an inherent crutch.
Much like if we geoengineered cloud seeding or similar light blocking and fail to reduce CO2, the treatment masks the cause and can lead to worse outcomes globally (even if some folks are better off - and I hope they are!).
However, if they are, then modern life is a sledge hammer that’s constantly breaking your legs.
Our (US, UK, Australia and so on) life styles and food chain have created this obesity problem.
We are now a sedentary population, and low-nutrient high-calorie food is being made readily available to stressed, tired, overworked, and economically challenged people. When you are stressed and tired, you don’t make the best choices!
These drugs are not so much a crutch as they are a rescue helicopter!
We still need education though.
These drugs might reduce hunger, but they won’t stop you from consuming junk-food. People are used to overeating, and a feeling full isn’t always what’s stopping them from eating!
So we do absolutely need to address the root of problem….
>These drugs are not so much a crutch as they are a rescue helicopter!
Yes, but once you’re rescued you hopefully try to avoid falling in the same situation that lead you to have to be rescued the first time. This should be a double approach solution, a short term (the drug) and a long term ( lifestyle changes) it can be done with the second only but personal commitment is required. Besides that we, as a society, are not accustomed to “subtractive solutions” they’re simply never considered or pushed by anyone because there’s no money on them. Money is in “creating solutions” not in “eliminating problems”
> Here I am looking from western Europe at 100% self-inflicted US obesity epidemics and shaking my head in disbelief, what kind of garbage and in what massive quantities you guys consume daily.
26% and climbing in the UK. 19% and climbing in Germany. 17% in France. 11% in Switzerland - and another 30% overweight. 20 years ago America was 32% obese. Do you want to bet that this is a uniquely American thing? That these numbers won't continue to climb in Europe? Hell, we're seeing them climb in Asia - South Korea's obesity rate among men went from 3.26% to 7.3% from 2009 to 2019, though women increased at a much slower rate.
> Sure, you can just literally throw money at the problem that is too scary for you to tackle it headfirst, or you can have a wake up call and make your life significantly better from now on and live longer. All is connected - it leads to higher confidence, happier healthier life. The key is to walk the hard path - overcome such a challenge will redefine who you are for the better. Taking pills every day because you can't avoid eating a cookie under stress won't, in contrary.
And plenty of people can keep moralizing about how everyone should do it The Proper Way and refusing to understand that while, yes, it is within the power of humans to overcome things with willpower, that there are situations that cause it to require significantly more willpower for some.
> Kids don't eat garbage because parents don't give them garbage, because parents don't eat and overeat on garbage.
This is a great example. A significant number of people end up obese because they're poor. This seems silly at first, right? Go to the grocery store, buy good whole food, cook, save money! There's problems with this: Many poor people work long hours and have difficulty finding the time or energy to cook. Even when they do, many of the cheapest food items are also the most calorie dense and worst calorie:satiety ratios. So this starts them on a cycle of eating the sort of food that makes you fat. And then the fatter you get, the more feedback cycles you have encouraging you to continue getting fatter - such as the well researched links between obesity and leptin. So they get fat, their kids get fat, and it becomes ever more difficult to stop being fat, all because that's the food they could afford to feed their families with.
> A significant number of people end up obese because they're poor... Many poor people work long hours and have difficulty finding the time or energy to cook.
Every one of those poor Americans has a vote. One vote per person, same as rich people. Experts have long noted that there are more poor people than rich people. There's nothing stopping them from doing what western Europeans did, vote in leaders who provide better working conditions, better worker protections and better pay, and other policies that reduce poverty.
If only there were a drug that suppressed political defeatism.
> There's nothing stopping them from doing what western Europeans did, vote in leaders who provide better working conditions, better worker protections and better pay, and other policies that reduce poverty.
On the local level, gerrymandering can quite literally stop them from doing that.
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. :/
I don't think the point is that GLP-1 inhibitors are "cheating," but that maybe some therapy for addiction (of all kinds) and a shift in focus toward health is a better idea than being on a drug for the rest of your life. So many people regain all the weight they lost after stopping these drugs, so it doesn't make meaningful progress and just covers the problem.
At some point, we may find that these drugs cause long-term health problems of their own, too.
> maybe some therapy for addiction (of all kinds) and a shift in focus toward health is a better idea than being on a drug for the rest of your life.
It doesn't work for nearly as many people as GLP-1 agonists do. There are many different treatment methods that have been tested and evaluated, and being told to diet and exercise through therapy barely works at all. GLP-1 by contrast works very well.
> At some point, we may find that these drugs cause long-term health problems of their own, too.
Almost sounds like wishful thinking on your part -- you might want to stop and consider why you're so invested in these drugs having long-term side effects.
CBT is very good at breaking addictions and other bad thought patterns, and it is the scientific basis on which most hard drug rehabs work. There's no reason to suggest that it works less on food than on heroin.
> There's no reason to suggest that it works less on food than on heroin.
And nobody said it did. But the thought that obese people haven’t considered therapy is absurd. Most of them do so for depression, not the obesity, but they are usually related.
The people who GLP-1 drugs help have not “never tried anything,” including but not limited to “real therapy.”
If CBT and other modalities help someone, great! But they often don’t, and when they don’t, it’s absurd to want them to continue to suffer instead of get help with medication.
> And nobody said it did. But the thought that obese people haven’t considered therapy is absurd. Most of them do so for depression, not the obesity, but they are usually related.
Citation needed. As I understand it, serious therapeutic psychological treatments for obesity are highly stigmatized in the US. You may be projecting your own experience onto a group that does not share it.
By the way, CBT as used for depression and for obesity are totally different types of CBT. CBT methods are highly tailored to the specific thought pattern you want to prevent.
> I don't think the point is that GLP-1 inhibitors are "cheating," but that maybe some therapy for addiction (of all kinds) and a shift in focus toward health is a better idea than being on a drug for the rest of your life.
There is no guarantee that I’ll have to be on it for the rest of my life. But also, I was not “addicted” to food.
I spent 18 months changing my lifestyle, nutrition, and exercise habits, and I lost zero weight. I gained health (hikes were no longer a problem, I was fully capable of working out after enough time doing it, etc.), but no weight loss.
Yes, I tracked. Yes, I ate below my expenditure. My body holds onto weight.
So yeah, I agree with more help for people with addictions, period. I do not see how it is a “replacement” for a medication that is clearly helping people.
A lack of therapy was not my problem.
> So many people regain all the weight they lost after stopping these drugs, so it doesn't make meaningful progress and just covers the problem.
> At some point, we may find that these drugs cause long-term health problems of their own, too.
Or we may not; these drugs have been around since 2005. They’re not new, despite most people having just heard of them now.
But we know for a fact that obesity kills.
Again: your contention is that instead of using this medication that helped me get healthier over the last 7 months and will help me get healthier yet over the next 7-8, you would have preferred that I “accept” that I have a problem imbued with negative morals (“addiction”) and try my hardest to break it. The thing is, I had already done that for the entirety of my life, remained obese, and would have died of it eventually.
Can I be disciplined? Absolutely. I even lost 55 lbs doing keto for 10 months. I ran a startup, and successfully sold it.
Discipline wasn’t my issue.
I’m not suggesting you should use a GLP-1 med. I’m suggesting you shouldn’t be the arbiter of whether it is helpful or not; it’s effects should be.
I was not talking about your personal experience. You may have actually benefitted from the main intended pharmacological effects of this drug, since it appears to be affecting your metabolism (your "body holds onto weight" comment suggests that). This is a diabetes drug, remember.
The majority of people who are accessing this drug have endocrine systems that work just fine, but problems with controlling themselves around food. Our societal-level response is to treat it with a drug rather than helping people who really do have significant willpower problems overcoming their lack of discipline. There are hugely beneficial approaches that rely on CBT, for example, but are relatively controversial because of "weightism" concerns.
> The majority of people who are accessing this drug have endocrine systems that work just fine, but problems with controlling themselves around food.
Citation needed. This is the main assumption you are making that I, and others, vehemently disagree with.
The implication is that this is the first time people have suddenly decided they don’t like being obese. That’s absurd. The people on these medications have tried everything. Talk to literally any obesity doctor and ask them about their patients.
This assumption is the problem. Nothing about the meds is easy. It just makes it possible for people to change when they couldn’t before.
I don’t know why people feel a need to argue against that.
> Our societal-level response is to treat it with a drug rather than helping people who really do have significant willpower problems overcoming their lack of discipline. There are hugely beneficial approaches that rely on CBT, for example, but are relatively controversial because of "weightism" concerns.
Sure, and I don’t disagree. And I’m all for people doing that too. If it works, great!
On average, it doesn’t, for the vast majority of people, though it does work for some, and that’s great. I agree it’s a preferable approach. But if it worked for most people, it would have worked.
But if it doesn’t work? Previously, people just accepted that they were going to be obese and miserable, and that it was their fault, which led to depression, etc., further making it “impossible” to ever fix.
So if there is a medication that helps people change their lifestyle to get healthy, and also appears to be extremely effective, and has a good safety profile… that’s bad?
> The people on these medications have tried everything. Talk to literally any obesity doctor and ask them about their patients.
Citation needed on this one. Almost all the obese people I know have never seen a specialist doctor about it, so I assume your anecdata have selection bias. The people who see obesity doctors are the ones who have tried everything. Not the average obese person.
I don't personally mind if you or anyone who really needs it and gets prescribed the thing by a specialist takes Ozempic. I don't think any drug use, be it Ozempic, abortion pills, or estrogen, should be stigmatized for the individuals taking it. I do think it's a sign of a societal ill that a large majority of the people taking Ozempic are not in that situation.
> Citation needed on this one. Almost all the obese people I know have never seen a specialist doctor about it, so I assume your anecdata have selection bias.
You sure? Nearly every single one I know has seen their primary about it every time they go in and if the primary referred them to a specialist they went.
What they don’t do, though, is talk about it.
Have you asked them?
> I don't personally mind if you or anyone who really needs it and gets prescribed the thing by a specialist takes Ozempic. I don't think any drug use, be it Ozempic, abortion pills, or estrogen, should be stigmatized for the individuals taking it.
Great, agreed.
> I do think it's a sign of a societal ill that a large majority of the people taking Ozempic are not in that situation.
I don’t think it’s true that “a large majority” of the people taking it are just handed the pills for fun, to lose a few pounds. Your assumption about to whom they are prescribed is my whole issue, as it assumes they don’t need it to lose weight and can “just eat right and work out,” and that is not true.
People who are obese don’t like being obese. They aren’t that way because they don’t care. They aren’t that way because they are lazy. (On average)
No, Wegovy and Zepbound are not diabetes drugs. They are weight loss drugs.
> ... but problems with controlling themselves around food.
Problems that Wegovy and Zepbound solve for most people taking them, when no other solution worked for those people.
> There are hugely beneficial approaches that rely on CBT,
CBT is much more expensive, time-intensive, and less effective for weight loss than GLP-1 drugs. It also scales incredibly poorly, as you need a huge number of therapists. There are roughly a hundred million obese Americans. We can make enough drugs to treat all them, but can we make and pay for several million therapists to perform CBT on all of them, all for less efficacy than the GLP-1 agonists? Fat chance.
Exactly! For many drugs it's essentially a funny accident of history that they were originally discovered while attempting to cure something completely unrelated to what is now their primary usage.
>The majority of people who are accessing this drug have endocrine systems that work just fine, but problems with controlling themselves around food
Quite frankly this is an incredibly absurd statement. Do you realize that our brains entirely control our behavior? An issue with self control is a brain issue, and very well may be an endocrine issue. Are you an endocrinologist?
Even if you were completely right, you might as well start shaming Africans for "needing" malaria vaccines. Europe is not America. What you call a self inflicted epidemic is generally accepted as a disastrous food situation because of market forces with no government incentives to foster a culture of healthy eating. And I'm underweight FYI before your European high horse starts lobbing more uncalled for insults.
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.
The GI issues tend to be minor. Unpleasant, but not exactly any more debilitating than a lactose intolerant person deciding that they really really wanted that extra large milkshake. Some people have it worse - but those, to my understanding, very much are in the minority.
Tirzepatide also has significantly fewer GI issues.
Muscle mass loss happens in any sort of weight loss where you don't eat enough protein and get enough exercise. There's no current evidence that when you control for calorie deficit, diet macros, level of exercise, bmr, etc., that people lose more muscle mass on GLP1 agonists to my knowledge.
This. You'll need studies to prove that semaglutide causes muscle mass -so you need to have a group that loses weight using semaglutide and another group that loses weight without it and compare the muscle loss. I'm willing to bet you'll see similar numbers. If you don't exercise, you will lose muscle mass when reducing weight - which is why trainers recommend resistance training and higher than usual protein while cutting.
GI issues are almost always minor. Folks are used to zero discomfort in their lives so the social media reporting of such is wildly overdone.
Tirzepatide is being investigated as a therapy for IBS. Within two weeks of being on the drug I was able to start living a life not scheduled around being near a restroom. This was suggested as a potential side effect by my doctor before taking it for weight loss, due to the GIP component in the drug which slows down your digestive track.
It could be I’m eating less. However I have went on crash diets before with absolutely no change to my constant lifetime GI issues, and have eaten extremely clean the past half decade due to a partner who cooks amazing healthy meals that would exceed most definitions of the term.
I’ve long since reached my goal weight and target body composition- but I plan on sticking to a low dose of Tirzepatide for the rest of my life since it gave me my life back. No more popping Imodium every few hours on vacation while simultaneously fasting. Just a normal life these days. I can enjoy a breakfast if I feel like it without it ruining the rest of my morning. Heck, I can even eat shitty greasy food at the state fair with only mild discomfort most folks would have from such poor choices.
Every study (still limited in number) I’ve read more or less refutes all the social media hysteria. There is a whole lot of smoke but no fires yet to be seen. They may still be coming.
The things that are not wholesale misinformation seem to be the requirement to cease use many weeks before going into surgery, potentially needing to be on it for your whole life, and the side effect it currently has on your finances. Nothing else seems to hold up under scientific scrutiny yet.
Perhaps I will regret this decision in 20 years, but I’m willing to take that risk to have some of the best quality of life years I’ve had yet.
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.
> 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.
Probably more or less the same as to what happens with skinny people who have a garbage diet but just eat less or have significantly higher metabolisms.
It's not great.
The good news is it's quite commonly reported (and I can add my anecdotal experience to the chorus) that I don't crave the food that's worst for me in any real quantity anymore. Even if I'm busy and need to scroll through uber eats, I'm not using it as an excuse to get a delicious but large, fried, high in carbs, high in fat meal. It's way easier for me to say "yeah that tastes good, but I'll grab the grilled chicken wrap and brown rice."
I'm not sure on what causes this - we have some preliminary studies around GLP1 peptides, dopamine, addiction, etc., so it might be something there. But the sheer number of people you hear talking about it makes me believe we'll have some studies that do look into it in the future. It might not happen to everyone, and some people might still just choose to eat poorly even if it does, but in both situations people's longterm health depends on them listening to advice on how to eat better and exercise, and I think most people would rather be average weight and metabolically unhealthy than obese and metabolically unhealthy.
One obvious risk would be blunting of longer term GLP-1 receptor activation. Imagine type 2 diabetes but for ghrelin.
To use an analogy amphetamines have a honeymoon period, and it feels like a lot of people on these weight loss drugs haven’t been on them long enough to get past the honeymoon period and see what the effects are after 10, 20, etc years
It's possible. But, we've had another GLP-1 medication in use for about a decade and a half now - liraglutide. So far, we haven't seen evidence of that occurring.
I don't think anyone who is both informed and sane would suggest that it is impossible that there are negative long term impacts from taking the medication. Just that we have no current indication of them, and that being afraid about a "what if" without any concrete concerns when the alternative is the "continue being in one of the riskiest states possible for human health" is silly.
People don't realize that Ozempic is already a third generation GLP drug, Mounjaro is a 4th, and the try generation drugs are already in wide scale clinical trials.
We do in fact know a lot about how these drugs affect people by now, and as you point out, we have well over a decade of data on them.
That's the danger of any rapid weight loss where you don't exercise and ingest additional protein.
I knew about it from prior research, but my doctor made sure to mention it to me as well. He's also monitoring the speed of my weight loss to determine if I should go on ursodiol to prevent gallstones - another potential side effect of rapid weight loss.
But the same could happen on any sort of caloric deficit. The GLP1 drug isn't causing you to lose muscle through some reaction occurring inside your body - it's your body just doing what it does in a calorie deficit when you aren't overindexing on protein and working out.
All significant weight loss includes some loss of muscle mass. Minimizing that is why every patient is advised and counseled to lift and work out, change their lifestyle and diet, and so on.
The pill alone isn’t magic. It just makes it possible to do the right things for people who found it impossible to do before.
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.
That _OR_ is doing a lot of work. I believe that 'or' makes the word not objectively pejorative. Context is important. A no-true-scotsman insinuation, or an insinuation that the crutch will never be removed does lack empathy and would seem pejorative to me.
Though, an empathetic concern that the crutch will never be removed - is not necessarily pejorative IMO. Either way, the crutch is a tool to "healing." Context matters.
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"
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.
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?
The negative connotation of a crutch implies that you are past the point of needing it and should be standing on your own two feet. If a thing is not meant to be temporary, or if you'll never be able to perform a task as well without it as you could with it, then it's a tool rather than a crutch.
Thus, calling GLP-1 meds a “crutch” implies that they are unnecessary, and that the patient should be able to do it without medication, which then creates guilt and shame where there shouldn’t be any.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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".
I think the difference is with food you have to eat it. You don't need alcohol, opioids or nicotine to live. With food it's much easier to fall back into similar or the same pattern as before because you can't avoid it.
The other problem being the availability of healthy food.
Those without the time or facility to cook are dependent upon stores selling convenience foods which are anything but healthy, those foods labelled as such being some of the worst examples.
Despite not being overweight and taking regular exercise, I have recently been diagnosed as diabetic and now see the world in a different light. It really is quite shocking how many aisles in. a typical supermarket are stocked with complete junk food.
>The other problem being the availability of healthy food. Those without the time or facility to cook are dependent upon stores selling convenience foods which are anything but healthy, those foods labelled as such being some of the worst examples.
Is it impossible to buy healthy food in your region? The average American spends six hours a day watching TV, do they really not have enough time to cook a meal? Just how many people do not have a cooker in their home? Is it cheaper to buy preprocessed food rather than the raw ingredients in that meal?
It seems to me the real problem is the supply of food is abundant and corporations have gone to extraordinary lengths to make it very palatable. Add in peoples tendency to chose the easy option (ready meals, eating out) and you get an obesity epidemic.
Everyone has 24 hours a day. We could all move to the cheapest CoL areas, grow our own food, and run marathons all day every day. Everyone, including you, could sneak one more rep in instead of some activity in the day. This holier-than-thou attitude of dismissing people is lame.
Empathy can go a long way and the more we can have for each other the better we will collectively be.
>This holier-than-thou attitude of dismissing people is lame.
If you want to solve the problem you have to understand it. I see lots of dubious suggestions like lack of time when working hours have reduced massively in recent history[1].
>Empathy can go a long way and the more we can have for each other the better we will collectively be.
If our read my second paragraph then you will see I'm not laying the blame at individuals.
Chemical dependency I believe can confuse the brain, where it actually does think you need the drug to live.
It can be very hard to avoid booze or cigarettes. They are everywhere. Potentially throughout all of a person's social group. Maybe at home if spouse or parents smoke.
As a former smoker, changing diet was easier for me than to change a smoking habit
While you're chemically addicted to a substance, yes, the body thinks you literally need it to survive. The point is what happens after you break the chemical addiction, you go through withdrawal, and can function again. The brain stops feeling you need it in that same way after this process. But it's almost impossible for someone who went through alchohol or nicotine or opioid withdrawal to ever consume that again and not relapse into addiction.
If the same logic applies to a "food addiction", then discontinuing the drug that helped you go over the initial addiction is going to be almost impossible, since you can't abstain from food.
Withdrawal can often be both a mental and chemical process. The desire to do something and constantly thinking about it can be just as much habit as it is chemical.
We are mostly on the same page I think. To the point though, re: food - it is not all equal. Fast food, ice cream, fried food, candy, chips- it is quite different from cooking your own meals and snacking on things like fruit, veggies and hummus (etc..)
Similar to your first point, I can't buy ice cream because I have no self control over it. (I would not say I have a food problem, it would therefore be a lot harder for others I believe)
While I agree "you can't abstain from food", it might be a bit overly reductive. Not all food is responsible for 'problem' eating. Similar to near absolutely (or absolutely) avoiding booze/nicotine, there might be similar foods that must be avoided. Which comes back to habits, changes to how a person snacks, when they eat, how long is spent in food prep,more grocery store trips, how they shop in the grocery store (etc)
I think smoking is particularly hard because most of the really bad effects come much further down the line.
You can smoke for years (even tens of) without much problem and if you do some sports even the cardio/breathing effects are largely mitigated (I know, this is what I do).
So, it's easy to only think about how good it makes you feel at the moment.
But alcohol will show nasty side effects rather sooner than later, it will show on your face, you will feel liver problems very fast and since you are in a secondary state when inebriated you will seem out of place when not in that state.
Both of those substances have the particular effect that if you use them repeatedly over a short (1-2 week) period of time in moderate but sustained quantities, you will get chemically addicted.
This is nasty and the reason why every parent tries to make this fact known to their children (more or less successfully depending on method).
Food addiction in my opinion is very different, it comes purely from psychological factors and should be very easy to correct on time.
It's not something that comes around in 1 week or 2. Even if you overeat 1000 kcal (1/3 more than the average of 2000) over the course of 2 weeks, you would only gain 2kg of body fat at worse.
It's really a very long sustained process to really become obese, it's not like chemicals that can get you in 2 weeks max.
While it's hard to lose what you gained (you basically need to starve a little bit) it's not that hard to make adjustment to life choice to avoid making the situation much worse.
Actually not true. All addicts develop lifestyles around their addictions. Alcoholics often have many social connections that involve alcohol, what they do for fun involves alcohol, etc. A successful recovery typically involves changing this lifestyle to make the problem behaviors easier to avoid.
People that move out of the USA generally lose weight. Especially if they move to a country with snaller portions and more walking. People that move to the USA generally gain weight. Evidence that it's lifestyle.
An environment that physically makes you more sedentary as, outside of a couple of cities, many things that would be sensibly done through walking in other countries involve driving.
You can easily tell this is the case by seeing where the obesity is less prevalent
I would suggest that you look at food labels of "equivalent" products on both sides of the Atlantic. US packaged foods have a lot more sugar (and general calories) than those in Europe, even when they are the "same."
This is bunk. An actual chemical addiction is not the same as feeling an urge to drink 8 cans of coke a day, or being unable to not buy a bag of chips at the gas station.
Your entire body and brain is a complex and messy chemical reaction.
The opening sentence of the wikipedia article on addiction currently reads: "Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behavior that produces natural reward, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences."
The page then lists "eating or food addiction" as examples, with food addiction being its own entire page.
> That is just not the reality though. You make a choice.
Brains are fascinating. There is a choice being made every time someone with gambling addiction goes to gamble or someone with a smoking addiction goes to smoke, but that doesn't mean they're not experiencing addiction/withdrawal distorting the ability to make that choice in a healthy fashion. Some people do manage to quit smoking by just making a decision one day to stop and sticking with it, with no assistance whatsoever; that doesn't mean they weren't experiencing addiction/withdrawal. There are, in fact, mechanisms that encourage addictive behavior, ranging from social media use to alcohol to food to MMORPGs. Not everyone who uses those things, even to excess, has an addiction. But some do. And breaking that addiction is laudable, whether with or without assistance.
> I realize people are trying to make over opiod abuse into some sort of addiction. It makes it easier to not blame the person and absolves them of all personal responsibility for their condition - they just can't help themselves, don't ya know!
I change one addiction to another addiction. If people find the above distasteful, I agree, but my question is why do you believe one thing for food addiction and another thing for other addictions?
It's well established science that chemical reactions, hormones, etc. in the body 100% influence your hunger and cravings.
That doesn't mean that it's not within the means of human willpower to overcome it - everyone has the power to not be obese. But that doesn't mean that it isn't significantly harder for some people based on their genetics, biochemistry, the feedback loop of being obese, etc.
Some people get out of opioid addictions cold turkey, by just not consuming more opioids, enduring the withdrawal symptoms, and then getting rid of the chemical dependency.
Since we know this phenomenon is real, this means that, even with a chemical dependency, people choose whether to take the drug or not. So, by your logic, they are not really addicted, they can just choose to stop at any time, they're just silly and weak people, right?
Of course this is reductive and simplistic. Ultimately your choices are a computation that your entire nervous system makes, and urges and cravings are a component of that, just like rational processes are. Different people's nervous systems weigh these factors differently, and have more or less powerful cravings and urges to begin with. It's absurd to think that your rational thinking can overwrite anything in any condition, and it's absurd to think that all people experience these thinks to the same extent.
If they started using them without informed consent, was it a choice?
And even then, you do have a chemical dependancy on enough calories, that dependency led to an evolved response mechanism, that mechanism is exploited by junk food manufacturers. That the substances your body and brain produce in response to food stimuli are endogenous (made in your own body) rather than exogenous (made outside) doesn't make them magically less potent — some of us can get past this with our willpower*, but observationally it's obvious that most of us can't.
* I seem to have a lot of willpower, but I suspect that's mainly that my conscious self is fairly oblivious to my body's needs, as my willpower also leads to me pushing myself too hard in various different ways.
> chemical dependency from eating two cheeseburgers for dinner
Wouldn't the initial dependency be almost purely psychological for opioids as well? Most people certainly wouldn't develop a chemical dependency after just two doses as well.
> developed a chemical dependency which is no longer a choice.
Why? They still have a choice. Of course it might be much harder for them to stick with that choice than for someone suffering from a mainly psychological addiction.
Can you acknowledge your own bias in condemning people who don't achieve the same thing you have achieved? Can you acknowledge any advantages you may have had that made it easier for you to succeed in this particular endeavor?
This is not about that.
This is about why you consider some bad habits are addictions and some others are not.
I don't know, maybe you are right, but you haven't provided any beginning of an answer yet.
Rather, you sound like you would be saying that "quitting alcohol is merely a question of personal choice" if you had struggled with alcohol rather than weight.
Why do you think people persistently, for years, keep choosing something that harmed their bodies?
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a "just" for everyone:
• Without any training, one day I decided to put one foot in front of the other and keep going, and managed 42 km, a literal marathon in distance — but it's obvious that, even though I was walking, most people can't do that.
• When I was at university, I gamified my diet to be the lowest cost without feeling hungry, and in retrospect that was probably 1100 kcal/day and only even safe because it was limited to term time, and it's really obvious that most people can't do that.
• Concersely, when I was on antidepressants and did graze myself into obesity, there simply wasn't a part of my mind aware of what I was doing to myself. I've lost that weight, but the strech marks are still there a decade later.
Right, or you can just own up to the fact that you do not have discipline and are indeed making detrimental choices for yourself. That alone is transformative, accepting responsibility.
These are all things that we acknowledge are possible to be addicted to to that are not substances. Not to mention that coke has caffeine which is a chemical substance just as much as anything.
You can pin addiction to anything as a personal weakness, including drugs. Why are some people able to smoke a few cigarettes or do a little bit of cocaine without ever getting addicted, when others are hooked on day one?
If there's one thing that's been fun to see as the outcome of GLP-1 drugs, it's that a lot of people seem to have a real problem seeing people better themselves the "easy way".
A good way to frame addiction is via perceived rewards. You can be addicted to many things if you look at it as “the person expects a reward for an activity, often errantly”. The worse addictions get into “the reward isn’t even expected with a moment’s clarity, but you do it anyway” territory.
It doesn’t matter what the actual addiction is, the reward circuitry in the brain is pretty much similar.
Addiction is basically highjacking our brain wiring that’s meant to help us expend energy chasing things that we need for survival (food, reproduction), and using it to chase other things
I find this attitude strange. I am a very physically fit man, I do not know what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone who has an addiction to food, but I do know people eat themselves to death. People deal with debilitating diseases that are directly linked to the amount they are eating. People literally destroy their body and live in the wreckage, and you think that it's not an addiction? If not an addiction what exactly is going on?
Addiction is this really scary thing I saw on tv about downtown Philadelphia and fentanyl killing people buy that's far away and couldn't happen here. Sure, I have friends who are fat and are unable to stop themselves from drinking 8 cans of coke a day but they're not shooting up with needles and I know them so they can't be this scary kind of person called an addict. Also I know this one girl who's glued to her phone all day and can't do anything else and she's also definitely not an addict.
Addiction hits the same part of the brain, no matter if it's chemical, physical, or digital. Just because our culture sees them differently doesn't make it the same underlying problem.
Seed oils (used in almost everything these days) contain a lot of linoleic acid, which is a precursor to endocannabinoids, potentially giving you the munchies. If eating gives you the munchies, making you want to eat more, I'd call that a chemical addiction.
I think avoiding bad foods is a better solution than reaching for drugs, but if the drugs help break the cycle, it could be beneficial.
>Seed oils (used in almost everything these days) contain a lot of linoleic acid, which is a precursor to endocannabinoids, potentially giving you the munchies. If eating gives you the munchies, making you want to eat more, I'd call that a chemical addiction.
If you listen to nutrition gurus, you'll hear claims like "food X contains chemical Y and chemical Y is either itself toxic or metabolizes to something toxic, therefore you shouldn't eat X". I promise you I can find videos where somebody has found something bad about spinach and will try to convince you not to eat it. It's a bad way to reason.
Identifying individual biological pathways isn't enough to make (dietary) prescriptions. Often, the metabolites of the food aren't produced in high enough quantities to make a measurable effect (on health, or this case behavior). This kind of thing has to be studied at the level of behavior.
As much as we pretend otherwise and rationalize stuff because the greatest sin for our generation is being judgemental, I am pretty sure this is the case in a lot of instances.
Shaming people is fantastic at making me feel self-righteous, though, which is the best metric by which I can evaluate treatments and interventions for other people.
(When I feel charitable, I can instead wring my hands and hemm and haww about the unknown consequences of people using medication to solve their health problems. I can't outline what exactly those consequences are, but I can certainly hemm and haww.)
This is the example I'm shocked more people don't invoke in these discussions. Gambling addiction is indisputably real, and slot machines (or craps tables or the ponies down at the track) don't even have stick a needle in you to get you hooked. Actions and reactions are more than enough.
Compulsive overeating relies on the same behavioral/reward mechanisms, with the added bonus of food being something you do physically ingest in the process.
Gambling addiction also has the highest suicide rate among addictions, so definitely serious.
The Atlantic had an article recently arguing that allowing sport gambling in the USA was a mistake, imposing huge costs on the most vulnerable.
It’s also popular in other forms these days. Wallstreetbets options gambling, most of crypto, the way many people are “trading” these is purely gambling with some bro-astrology.
When I was a poor teenager I was gambling online and it is an incredible way to lose money unlike anything. With the click of a button you can throw $100 or $1000 into the void- and you often follow it up until your account is empty. Hard to do with many other substances.
It’s the same thing. Obviously withdrawals and such are different but the core mechanism of disregulated reward processing leading to compulsive behavior engagement is exactly the same.
>If you do not change your lifestyle, for real and not just superficially, then you will relapse with a vengeance.
Longterm glp-1 agonist research doesn't agree with this.
> but you have to continue that lifestyle after stopping the drug.
Why stop the drug?
>Will Ozempic users have developed the personal discipline to prevent themselves from relapse without the drug - or will they forever be on a the yo-yo of weight gain/loss?
A small % of people are able to achieve significant weight loss with diet and exercise. And an even smaller % of that group are able to maintain it for the long term. We've been trying to solve obesity this way for a 50 years and have bubkis to show for it. If someone has high cholesterol we give them a statin, if they have high blood sugar we give them diabetes. Now if they're overweight we give them ozempic.
"For the two in every five patients who discontinue the treatments within a year, according to a 2024 JAMA study, this means that they are likely to rebound to their original weight with less muscle and a higher body fat percentage."
The other issue is the muscle loss on being on these drugs as "Clinical data shows that 25 per cent of weight loss from Eli Lilly’s shot resulted from a reduction in lean body mass, including muscle, while 40 per cent of Novo Nordisk’s jab was due to a drop in lean body mass."
Via https://www.ft.com/content/094cbf1f-c5a8-4bb3-a43c-988bd8e2d...
Right, so we doom some portion of the population to forever take a pill from big pharma? How is that acceptable with anyone?
The goal should be to use Ozempic until you are in a better place to manage things yourself. The goal should not be to get people hooked on Ozempic for their entire lives.
Perhaps Ozempic prescriptions should come with prescribed exercise with check-in and monitoring, or something.
I guess young people don't always know this, but there are plenty of medications a lot of people take for the rest of their lives. Blood pressure and cholesterol pills are maybe the most common.
This gives a vast number of people 5-10 years longer lives, and I think this is great thing, even if some pharma executives end up getting rich.
Or insulin. I’ve been shortsighted since childhood and will need to wear glasses for the rest of my life (unless I get laser corrective surgery, I guess).
Many people in my wife’s family have thyroid gland dysfunction and have to take thyroid hormones their whole lives.
Not just young people. High blood pressure runs in our family. A cousin, despite being healthy in most indicators, developed high blood pressure at 23. She's still going in her 50s just fine but has had to take blood pressure meds for the last 27 years.
This thread has multiple people relating their personal stories of using ozempic to start building those healthy habits. Also, it doesn't just magically get rid of fat so you can eat more, its supposed to make you feel full longer (as I understand it, someone feel free to correct me on that).
Plus, even if it did magically get rid of fat temporarily, I'd rather encourage people to do something rather than simply shaming them for giving into a very human addiction.
Your biggest concern around glp-1 drugs shouldn't be the overweight people successfully slimming down, it should be people who are already a healthy enough weight who think they need to be even skinnier (something I've encountered plenty of).
> its supposed to make you feel full longer (as I understand it, someone feel free to correct me on that).
It's complicated. This is commonly reported by people taking it, but it's not the only mechanism. Also commonly reported are that it reduces hunger levels flat out across the board, makes you feel full after eating less food, and that as you get used to eating less food your stomach physically gets smaller and you can't even eat as much food at all even if you tried to force yourself to (e.g. at a big holiday meal full of delicious food where you want to eat everything so long as physically able to, well past the point of hunger).
Yes, it is within the realm of human power for every individual to not be obese.
But the fact of the matter is... a huge chunk of people don't succeed. 42% of American adults are obese. "Eat better and exercise" has not resolved the issue.
I spent a good chunk of my adult life eating well, doing cardio, lifting weights and loving it. Then I got busy with life and stopped. And it has been incredibly difficult to get back to that and gets harder as I get older. I don't think I'm some paragon of willpower - if so, I wouldn't have fallen off the wagon. But I think it would also be silly to think that if someone who has a proven track record of maintaining that for years can struggle with maintaining it for a lifetime, there's probably a lot of people who have never even had that much success who are going to have even worse of a time.
Are we going to moralize over bp meds and statins too? If people can't adapt, fuck 'em, let 'em die young?
We don't get pissed that elephants don't climb trees. What value is it to characterize people's obesity entirely as slovenness and gluttony? While there are certainly some slobs and glutton, dismissive judgmentality of everyone doesn't make sense.
For this reason, I believe your comment is lacking in empathy for people who may struggle differently than you, yet struggle all the same.
Sure of the almost 8 billion people in the world there are plenty who have successfully lost and kept off weight.
But if you want to see if there is a reproduceable lifestyle intervention that treats obesity successfully in the long term you can look here. After a few hours of searching you will probably find the same thing I and almost all obesity researchers have concluded. There isn't one.
There are two ways to lower weight. Eat less, and Ozempic. I don't think it's any of my business which one people pick. The important thing is that they become healthy.
I've realized people are very different. Some can just decide to eat less by applying a little willpower. For others, that's incredibly hard. If you're in group 1, it's easy to think everyone is and be appalled how others can't even put in that little bit of effort.
Can you provide evidence that a statistically significant portion of the population have managed to maintain weight loss in the manner you describe?
The evidence I see does not support your claim. Obesity rates have only gone up during my lifetime and the folks I know in the medical field have consistently mentioned how diet and exercise simply does not have any sort of patient compliance. The folks who successfully do it are outliers.
I will go for the harm reduction principle on this one. The molecules themselves are trivially mass produced for less than $10 a dose and are already being sourced for that cost by folks who are willing to take a bit more risk to do so. Cost seems to be about the only major side effect so far.
> doom some portion of the population to forever take a pill from big pharma
That is temporary. The effects are real. The fact that you don't think big pharma should profit handsomely for making it happen is not the only alternative. Before too long semaglutide, as one example, will be out of patent and available as a generic. It won't cost a thousand bucks a month to big pharma, it'll be practically free. Cheap enough that most insurance plans will likely subsidize it all the way to zero out-of-pocket cost just because the ROI is so good.
How my decisions will affect some company's bottom line is way behind "will this help me live a better, longer life" in my list of priorities, but I'm already on other medications that are generic for the rest of my life for other genetic defects I've been blessed with, though I'm not on Ozempic.
Why not? What would you rather be: Fat to your death, or healthy and dependent on modern technological society in yet another way? How is it any different to diabetes treatment?
I take a statin as something in my body produces high levels of cholesterol even on a low fat diet. I will always take a statin. It works well and there are few side effects.
My spouse must take a thyroid medicine every day for life.
Not taking these pills is life threatening. How is taking them not acceptable?
Why would you want to continue using a drug for the rest of your life?
> Longterm glp-1 agonist research doesn't agree with this.
Please explain. If you stop using the drug, because you've achieved your goals, what stops you from relapsing other than your own personal habits and lifestyle?
> A small % of people are able to achieve significant weight loss with diet and exercise. And an even smaller % of that group are able to maintain it for the long term. We've been trying to solve obesity this way for a 50 years and have bubkis to show for it. If someone has high cholesterol we give them a statin, if they have high blood sugar we give them diabetes. Now if they're overweight we give them ozempic.
Yes, a pill for this, a pill for that... and there's no chance we'll discover these drugs have negative effects when used by a person for 50 years.
> Why would you want to continue using a drug for the rest of your life?
It's better than being obese. This is true of most drugs for chronic conditions. very few of them are curative, almost all of them treat the condition.
> Longterm glp-1 agonist research doesn't agree with this.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant with continued treatment you don't rebound.
> Yes, a pill for this, a pill for that... and there's no chance we'll discover these drugs have negative effects when used by a person for 50 years.
They might have negative side effects but obesity has very large negative side effects. I would be incredibly surprised if any of these drugs that have been used in diabetes treatment for a long time have anywhere close to the negative side effects of obesity.
Hot take: "choice" is a myth when it comes to long-term executive processing, one doesn't choose to be obese/not, drug addicted/not, etc, the same way one chooses whether they want chicken or beef ramen for lunch. It's an unending grind of executive functioning against more basal impulses, that is heavily influenced by the blend of nature and nurture and life events.
False. (All) People crave for food. Some people have stronger craving than others. In healthy people you call it "hunger". In obese people it is more like an addiction. Do you know people can be addictes to sex and to work, too?
If you insist on the choice argument, the only way an addict can stop consuming is locking himself in a room and throwing away the key. Other than that, much help is needed, many changes are needed, and even chemicals are needed.
All you're saying is the it's harder to make some choices depending on situation. They are still 100% choices. Choices don't have to be trivially easy.
It doesn't work. I keep trying to get off the diabetes and I just relapse after a few weeks. It doesn't help that my body tries to hide the glucose everywhere, like attached to hemoglobin or in my liver in the form of glycogen so it can share a hit with me first thing every morning.
Nope, not going back to the doctor that gave me diabetes. That was a mistake.
> A small % of people are able to achieve significant weight loss with diet and exercise. And an even smaller % of that group are able to maintain it for the long term.
Ozempic is only fighting symptoms of that, not the root of the problem which is the stigma around weightgain, being a big person, just fatphobia being extremly generalized and a lot of shame surrounding weight. While it's amazing for people who have medical conditions making them gain a lot of weight, just saying that they should take ozempic will not change people gaining too much weight. It's not anything like high cholesterol or high blood sugar in most cases.
I'm someone that has spent many years of my life eating well and exercising regularly, including weightlifting. I'm also someone who has spent the past decade doing neither of those things, with one attempt in the middle to correct my behavior interrupted by a knee injury.
I'm currently on tirzepatide and have also started to resume exercise, and I'm enjoying it like I did when I was younger - I expect I'll be able to go off of it when I get to my goal weight.
But at the same time, there's not any real reason that people would need to go off the drugs, outside of cost. So far we don't see any adverse reactions in the vast majority of people. Some people have reactions from rapid weight loss - gallstones, hair loss, etc. but these are also risks in crash diets, etc.
We accept that people will need lifelong medication (often with worse side effects) for other illnesses that have less risk to all cause mortality, etc., than obesity. Why would we be unwilling to do it for obesity?
The fact of the matter is that despite the risks and downsides of obesity being well known in America, 42% of American adults are obese. No amount of education or knowledge that has gotten us on the whole to eat better or exercise more. Plainly, being on these GLP1 medications is preferable to being obese based on all current knowledge.
> The fact of the matter is that despite the risks and downsides of obesity being well known in America, 42% of American adults are obese.
It's down to 40% and dropping now, thanks essentially solely to GLP1 agonists! This will, no lie, save our country trillions of dollars in increased years of quality of life (and thus productivity) and reduced healthcare costs.
> The problem with this (and all diet plans/drugs) is the lifestyle that led to problem in the first place.
I don't think we fully know what led to the problem in the first place.
I think it's a complex interaction between the types of foods we eat, and which are more affordable, our gut microbiome, and the amount and frequency of exercise which we are able to fit into our day.
We have some pretty good ideas that reducing intake of high glycemic foods, safely reducing overall calorie intake, and getting regular exercise will help.
However, it's the bad food which many families can most afford. Many people find it difficult to make time for exercise, since they are pretty exhausted from making a living. The foods which are bad for us tend to make us feel good in the short term.
When a person has become obese, it is harder to start exercising, and it's harder to find exercises which don't hurt their feet, joints, back, or other parts of their body.
Ideally, we would all have copious time to exercise, and healthy food would be abundant and affordable. But, that's generally not the case for most people.
And some people seem to be genetically predisposed to gain weight.
If you compare the typical American diet and ingredients to the rest of the world, the answer is clear.
The problem is most Americans (where the obesity crisis is worst) don't know their country's businesses are selling them rubbish and their government is subsidising it.
I don't think you expect to stop taking the drug. It's a for-life kind of thing.
If a prescription for "lifestyle changes" were a drug, it would be one of the least effective drugs ever made. I read something directed at medical professionals that are skeptical of the GLP-1 receptor agonists and it asks, if you prescribe a drug and your patient refuses to take it, why would you keep prescribing that drug? Of course not. That's what lifestyle changes are, and the landscape has changed so that there are alternatives.
(My employer is heavy on the "lifestyle changes" angle. They will not pay for GLP-1s, but they will send you a newsletter about losing weight if you want. Guess who's losing the weight.)
You say this - but not from experience (correct me if I'm wrong and you have taken a GLP-1 agonist).
I say this because as someone who has taken it, I found one of the craziest parts is how they do seem to help you set better habits, and those habits do stick, and it's not like some fake thing.
For example MJ helped me do the following: entirely stopped late night snacking, stopped craving sweets, stop smoking weed. And it doesn't come back when I go off, even after months.
I wasn't especially overweight when I went on (maybe 20lbs), I did it for the incredible immune system benefit which seem to heal my immune disorder, but I was stunned at the results outside of it.
I get that people hate the idea of something that helps you be better without having to "put in work", but in the weirdest and best way possible, it seems to do that, at least in part.
> people hate the idea of something that helps you be better without having to "put in work"
This is kind of an incredible reaction many people seem to have. Isn’t this just a net positive? Even if someone feels like gatekeeping good health, ozempic is only giving you maybe 60% of the benefits of a healthy diet and regular exercise. It’s not taking anything away from people who put in the effort
The genetics of hunger are fascinating, people literally feel very different levels of hunger.
My family are mostly all quite fit and healthy, but this is because exercise and dieting are a cultural obsession in my family to an un-mentally healthy extent, because as I understand through conversation with others
We feel an unusually high level of hunger, I can be full to bursting and hunger does not stop. I tried semaglutide, it was the first time I can recall ever feeling the absence of hunger.
To think that my family and I are likely nowhere near the top of the hunger spectrum astonishes and horrified me
Yes, what's true and often understated about weight-loss is that people usually do lose weight when they decide to, but gain it back. Aside from lifestyle, metabolic adaptation is one factor. Since metabolism is lower, increasing calorie intake too quickly leads to weight-gain, and metabolism remains worse than it was before.
Sounds like it directly affects their lifestyle though? Being less drawn to addictions, and thus less engaged in related activities, is a pretty big lifestyle change.
It really depends. If you break the addiction and it could very well remain.
An example is tobacco/nicotine. If you stop smoking while you are on the drug and you break the addiction and the habit, you aren't going to reform that habit unless you start smoking again. And that's unlikely to occur because you no longer have the habit, you no longer have the chemical compulsion, and you aren't consuming any of it. Maybe stress could force a relapse due to weakness of mind but all things considered that's minor relative to the chemical addiction and the habit forming behavior.
An example where you may see relapse is alcohol or marijuana where the substance comes almost more from a social environment than it does from the chemical draw. Like once the habit is broken, it's still easy to be put into situations where recreational use is common and more or less expected on rare or semiregular occasions. That of course could lead to new habits forming and leading to relapse or it may not depending on what other (hopefully healthy) habits the user is now taking part in, their stress level, and other aspects of their life.
So the answer is of course that it depends but if the drug can reliably help people break habits then it can maybe also be useful in helping them avoid forming new bad habits or relapsing when the urge becomes too strong to resist.
What is the core of your point? That these drugs, that extend life, and reduce associated illnesses should be ignored or not used, because instead people can die sooner in some attempt to cure themselves the "correct" way?
A corpse cannot learn healthy lifestyle habits. A living person who lost weight the immoral way or whatever you're trying to say, can of course.
All the people I know who are on those for-life medications absolutely hate the fact that they have to keep taking those pills every day until they die.
eh, my inner "prepper" is annoyed by the dependency, the rest of me is pleased that I've already lived longer than any of my male ancestors. (Kind of hard to sneer at advanced technology given what I do for a living :-)
I was talking about one of the other "for-life medications" in the previous comment that are more in the "can't get this any more? oops, in 6 months your head explodes" category...
The point is you still need to develop a lifestyle that is healthy. The drug isn't a miracle, it's a band aid. If you do not change your lifestyle, and you discontinue using this drug, you will relapse. This is the same issue many people face when they diet as well, so it is nothing new.
The point of my saying this is to point that out, because a lot of people in this thread seem to think it is totally ok to be on an Ozempic prescription for your entire life. That's horrifying for so many reasons. Others seem to think you take Ozempic until you're "cured" then you just live happily ever after. That's hardly going to be the case for many people who have struggled with weight for their entire lives.
Why? AFAIK Ozempic seems to work by "modifying" behaviour and reducing the appeal of overeating and possibly engaging in other addictive behaviours.
It's not some magic pill that you take and then don't actually have to change anything about your lifestyles. It seems similar to antidepressants, ADHD drugs etc. in that way and a lot of people take those for extended periods or even their entire lives.
Besides potential side-effects etc. what's to horrifying about it?
I think we hear you, we should all take more care about bad lifestyle, everybody should exercise regularly and eat healthy food. But to be fair nobody has promoted a bad lifestyle, or said that, given there is this new drug let's care even less.
At the contrary, given the testimonies it sounds like the drug helps people to adopt better habits, no?
> given the testimonies it sounds like the drug helps people to adopt better habits, no?
No, it helps people live a better lifestyle so long as they remain on this drug. The feeling/impulses are artificially suppressed.
Maybe they come right back if you stop taking the drug. One would hope you can take the drug until in a good place to take over on your own. Time will see - a great experiment is about to take place.
A lot of people are less capable of controlling those impulse on their own and are inherently more prone to developing addictions than others due to genetic/etc. reasons. Yes they can make different choices, change their lifestyles, adopt certain routines etc. all which would require a huge amount of effort just to get on part with people who can achieve those things (relatively) almost effortlessly.
Why should they be forced to suffer due to something they have limited control over?
Yeah, no. Speaking of "personal discipline" makes it obvious you have never seriously dealt with addicts. Solving it long term is basically impossible for some of us; pretty sure because of how our brains are wired at the physical level. I know all the (popular) science, I discussed it with a good doctor whom I personally know, I know you're supposed to change your habits long-term (and how you're supposed to do it), and I recently lost 15 kgs of weight for the fourth time in my life. The longest time I managed to maintain healthy weight was maybe 3-4 years. If Ozempic (or whatever) actually solves this, I'm ready to go on it for the rest of my life.
I also live in a "vodka belt" and know several alcoholics who tried very hard to maintain their "personal discipline". It's impossible for most of them -- almost all relapse in a few years' time.
I'm one of those people who has repeatedly lost weight by managing food intake. I'm talking about losing over 30 pounds, more than once. It might have been three times. Oh yea and I've kept it off for close to a decade now. I didn't use drugs. At times I used a food scale to manage portions. At times I literally just microwaved broccoli for a snack/meal. I still do it periodically if I'm feeling self-conscious. Does it suck? Yep. Have you guys ever tried those things?
I mention this because I feel like you need somebody who has gone through the experience to actually have credibility in the conversation, to tell you that personal discipline is a real thing that can achieve results. I think it's ridiculous how quickly you dismissed the parent post.
I've gone through that experience multiple times as well. Also over 30lbs each time. Also having kept it off for years, although not quite a decade for my longest period. COVID was my last regression, as it was for many who lost it and maintained it the way we both did.
The GLP-1's are a game changer. I will never lose weight the "white knuckle" way again. I can, and I have proven it to myself and others. It's not complicated as you say - it's quite simple.
It's simply such a giant imposition on your life and mental well being that I am thankful others won't have to go through it as their only option in the future. The sheer chunk it takes out of my executive function means I can't perform nearly as well at other tasks in life. The GLP-1 class of drugs make it trivial in comparison. Like a performance enhancer for a diet.
I also have worked out a hell of a lot more taking Tirzepatide than I ever did counting calories on a food scale. This is because I feel so much better it's not even a comparison - primarily mentally, but also physically due to the other positive side effects the drug has associated with it. Plus I don't feel guilty when I go out with friends to a burger joint - I eat half and feel perfectly satiated, no guilt or "cheat day" required. My energy levels are not comparable. I have much more time in my day available for other activities, such as keeping appointments with my personal trainer at the gym or taking 6 miles of walks per day.
Losing weight and maintaining an active healthy lifestyle doesn't have to "suck" any more.
I feel like you need someone who has gone through both experiences to actually have credibility in this conversation. Willpower isn't a special trait, it's not something to lord over other people.
>Willpower isn't a special trait, it's not something to lord over other people.
I'm not special. Look at his post. He quickly dismisses the idea of personal discipline and asserts that keeping weight off is "basically impossible" in the first two lines. What kind of bullshit is that? Because we don't know what it's like? Well I do.
I worded that poorly and deleted a paragraph below it since it maybe was wandering into places I didn’t want it to.
Reading on the topic of self control and personal discipline, and talking with friends with phds on the subject of addiction medicine changed my mind and perspective on it. I can white knuckle pretty much anything - so can most people if properly motivated. I no longer find that interesting or a point of pride.
When you look into addiction at a deeper level you find people who are sober from their drug of choice, but utterly miserable. This is similar to your description of having to lose and maintain weight through self control. The “it sucks” part. I no longer feel it needs to suck, just like a former alcoholic will tell you how it’s relatively easy to be sober but miserable. The hard part is figuring out how to do it while being happy and not constantly in a battle with yourself. I see what you describe as someone who avoids alcohol by not visiting establishments that serve it and keeping it out of the house.
What I realized is that I don’t need to do that with food - there is help available. I’m now like the former alcoholic that can be around booze without a single thought of taking a sip. It’s an entirely different life experience and I’m not miserable or using a portion of my brain to remain in control.
I have done it both ways and the GLP-1s effectively saved my life. Not literally - but it’s now a life worth living vs just surviving.
I firmly believe these drugs will be as society changing as antibiotics were.
Sure, I'm proud of being able to do it. But it's not an ego/pride thing this in this conversation. I don't know how to say this politely, but I think it's dangerous when our own failures warp our world view with regards to possibilities and truth. "I couldn't do it, so it's impossible" Well maybe? But maybe not.
And you're right. I've had to make lifestyle changes where I avoid certain venues. I don't have fast food. I've had chips maybe a handful of times in the past several years. You can call it a battle, but I wouldn't say I'm miserable on a daily basis. I just got used to it.
Using drugs to improve your quality of life is incredibly valuable. At the same time, I still believe that lifelong dependence to drugs should be avoided. I anticipate negative societal and psychological outcomes in the future. But I have to run.
>You only know what it’s like for you You know nothing of anyone else’s experience and pretending otherwise is comical at best.
Well we're all technically different, so nobody knows what it's like to be you. So literally no advice or data can actually apply to you. Those scientific studies studied other people, right? Cool world we've created.
At what point are you willing to concede that it might not be feasible for someone that isn't you? If it were 10% harder do you think you would have stuck through it? 50% harder? The numbers say the proportion of people who are successful is very small and there are sure a lot of people who are trying
Edit: I'll add that I've successfully shed 100lbs through discipline before. With the life I currently as caretaker for my son I don't nearly as much room in my life for the mental overhead that sort of change in diet required me in the past.
I can imagine it being a lot harder. There are all sorts of arrangements that either enable or reinforce the types/volume of food that you eat. Still, I think people should try to be aware of their own situation and try to identify those factors that promote weight gain. Even if it was harder, I still think it's inappropriate to say it's "basically impossible" and to deny common sense.
You talk about common sense and see a sea of people who are trying to lose weight (cdc says about half of adults in the US[1]) at very low success rates (<1% according to this study [2]) and think: they must be ignorant or not trying hard enough. I just don't really see how you could reasonably make that case.
I don't really know what to tell you. Again, I understand weight loss can be extremely difficult. What's the conclusion you're trying to get me to accept?
Telling somebody that they're ignorant or not trying hard enough isn't exactly constructive. But neither is digging up studies trying to convince people that they can't achieve some level of fitness. It's science, but somebody else's failure doesn't determine yours. Again, common sense.
You need to examine your life and figure out what factors contribute to your weight gain. Is that already unreasonable?
I don't think the problem is that people don't know what is making them gain weight. If it were, I don't think the rates of obesity would be as high as they are. I'm not saying it's impossible; you've done it, I've done it. I'm saying that at some point you have to have reasonable expectations about what you can expect from people at large .
So I was, also, a firm believer of the "gotta fix your lifestyle" school of thought regarding weight management until I was introduced to the Maintenance Phase podcast (hosted by Aubrey Gordon and Michael Hobbes).
This podcast, and Aubrey's book "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Fat," opened my eyes to the fact that many people are just _born_ hungrier than others.
The body will weigh what the body wants to weigh, no matter how many fad diets or drugs you throw at it.
Unfortunately, those whose bodies that don't conform to our modern, eugenicized definition of "healthy" and don't particularly care for working out at all times are dealt a lifelong sentence of social ostracizing, "have you tried this diet" and "calories in, calories out," mostly against their will.
To wit: I can easily scarf down 3000+ calories per day. EASILY. I also know people who struggle to eat 2000 calories per day. I've seen this dynamic with kids in the same family as well.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to make healthier choices. Everyone can benefit from a balanced diet and more exercise. I'm saying that some people will naturally be heavier than others, and that should be okay.
I figure for some people it will work as a crutch and for some it will work as a prosthetic. I guess that depends on whether you need to take some weight off and allow yourself to heal, or if you are actually missing that appendage. Metaphorically.
Well that's the whole point of the novelty of this drug.
This drug somehow effects our emotional resilience and/or the strength of our response to emotional decisions and/or the way our brain weighs different options regarding to long-term planing.
Basically instead of your suggestion of not treating drugs as a crutch, and trying hard to restructure your life; this drug basically does exactly that. It gives you the decision making of a person that already did fight the addiction and restructured his life. The only thing then is for the person to actually restructure his life by living his newly well-decisioned life for a while.
That's why it is sometimes bad advice to tell people not to use medicine as a 'crutch'. Just like actual crutches, they actually are meant to be able to temporarily support a person. If somebody needs a 'crutch' they should fully use it, especially if it can help them ultimately solve the need for the crutch.
I get what you're trying to say with the crutch thing, but personally this kind of attitude prevented me from considering medication much earlier. Even though we all feel deep in our hearts that standing by yourself is better than relying on some crutch, nobody cares, and nobody is going to give you any bonuspoints if you make it to your death without any help. If any type of medication or treatment can help you, for the love of all that is good, use it.
Did you even read the top level comment here where the person addresses this? Anyway, this sort of moralizing is incredibly inhelpful. Very few people are obese because they lack “discipline”. Certainly they are no less disciplined than most non-obese folks in the world. All sorts of factors play into obesity that have nothing to do with “discipline”: genetics, gut microbiome, local environment, food availability, mental health, physical disease.
There’s some small percentage of people for whom “discipline” is enough, but when people talk like you are with the implicit assumption that all fat people are lazy and immoral due to lack of “discipline”, you only reinforce the misinformation about the causes of obesity and make it harder to address novel causes with novel treatments.
I'd say it's the opposite - if you don't exercise you end up skinny fat which is metabolically unhealthy as well. It helps with super accessible dopamine hits I guess - which is awesome - but need to combine it with exercise for maximum benefit.
I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a drug for that that's more sideffect free than testosterone/ derivatives. Lean and ripped cocktail
This is true, but I'd qualify it. I'm MUCH more active than when I started, just naturally, and my heart health / true age stats (for what they're worth) are twenty years lower than when I started. I lost a lot of muscle, but as a percentage, my body fat is nearly half what it was when I started. 10/10 would do again.
Recomping is a huge struggle, you just can't eat enough to add muscle bulk. Cycling on and off is tough because if you don't taper off it, your body is like "thanks for ending that long term caloric deficit, have you heard of cake?". So you definitely need to approach the muscle mass question seriously, but in no world was I healthier back when I had an extra 10 to 20lbs of muscle, and the rest in fat.
Would you mind sharing before and after lean/fat percentages and or numbers?
I am really curious if there is a way to optimize bulkng prior to getting on these drugs with a goal of retaining muscle mass(important as we age)
Take a look at the protocol for the protein sparring modified fast which is a form of short to medium term fast that is designed to retain muscle mass by eating tons of protein with a large caloric deficit (1k+ calories a day). You can easily convert it to a more sustainable Ozempic diet by adding more fat/carbs to make the lean protein more palatable.
Fair warning though, this isn't an easy diet if you're not good at cooking and can't easily develop your own recipes. Lots of lean chicken breast so techniques like sous vide really help.
Prefer not -- sorry! I'm here on my real name. If you want my advice, lose the weight then worry about it. A good amount of research indicates you tend to gain muscle mass in the fat/muscle percentage you start with; regardless if you are seriously in need of weight loss, the benefits of doing that far outweigh the (temporary?) downsides of losing some muscle mass for most people I bet.
Turns out it can also be useful during a personal apocalypse: having recently lost about 35lbs from emergency chest-cracking surgery, ended up pretty glad I wasn't at my leanest going into it (sadly, more of the weight lost was probably muscle wasting/deconditioning than fat stores, but on balance it was probably good I had at least 15lbs of fat stores to burn).
Honestly, sounds like our "modern lifestyle" is designed to get everyone addicted to something, and the healthiest possible addiction is, as it turns out, an anti-addiction medication.
It's not a miracle drug. Check this Joe Rogan interview to understand at a deep level all the problems with a drug like Ozempic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0lTyhvOeJs
I know this going to be blasfemy but the real problem here is carb addiction and we should be treating the root cause not the symptoms with a drug with unpredictable long term consequences.
I'd second this opinion – weight can be lost so easily by dropping the majority of carbs. By that I mean base one's nutrition on meat / fish / eggs / vegetables / fruit, with no pasta, no bread, no sweets, no cake, no chips/crisps, no biscuits / cookies etc (and no booze too, or at least keeping it very minimal or sporadic).
If you do 1000+ calories a day of exercise above your basic metabolic rate / consumption, you will lose 1kg/2lb per week. I'm doing this at the moment (and then will be continuing beyond) and it really does work. I do, however, have the luxury of spending 3-5 hours a day in the gym & fitness classes and swimming pool, and cycle there and back. My Apple Watch is amazing at tracking the calories burned in all these exercises, so I know that I'm burning 3500 - 4800 calories a day from exercise. It's trivial to then only eat around 2000-2500 calories a day. This can barely even be classified as a diet, just healthy choices.
The availability of cheap calories and easy carbs everywhere really is the peril of the western diet. Eating vegetables and protein is a little strange at first but the weight will drop off without having to feel hungry. Hence I'll be joining you in the blasphemy, but this really is a solution to excess weight and it's simple maths that cannot be cheated by the body – unless one has some kind of extreme medical condition, the body simply will not stay heavy while running a deficit and a high protein and low "lazy" carb diet. And I'm saying this as someone who has a decent amount invested in both Novo Nordisk and Eli Lily stocks...
Yet it seems that now these drugs exist, it's easier and quicker to take them as a fast track, because if you're 50kg / 100lb overweight, then to say to someone "you need to exercise quite a lot every day, while not eating cheap carbs, for a whole year and then continue beyond" it simply seems too difficult and hard.
I would listen to what his guests on this particular podcast have to say before jumping into conclusions just because the interviewer is Joe Rogan.
I have no particular opinion on him - I’m just interested in what the interviewees in this specific episode have to say about metabolic health which has direct implications on the massive usage of drugs like ozempic.
I'll start with stating that Joe Rogan has, as the years have gone on, resulted to more and more fringe guests on basically every subject.
Then I'll point out that these guests are MDs, not PhDs.
And then I'll point out this bit from the description:
> Dr. Casey Means is the Co-Founder of Levels Health, which provides insights into metabolic health through real-time data. Calley Means is the Co-Founder of Truemed, which enables HSA spending on healthy food, supplements and exercise. They are the co-authors of "Good Energy."
Their livelihood is based on selling people apps, services, hardware, supplements, etc. around a certain lifestyle. They've got direct financial incentive to be against GLP1 medications.
For any specific claims, well, if you're going to use a video for reference, present the specific claims, timestamps, etc. You can't expect random people on the internet to watch a two and a half hour video off of nothing more than "you'll understand at a deep level the problem with glp1 drugs!"
In contrast with the huge amount of money that the pharma industry spends in marketing GLP1 drugs to people not caring about their long term effects but only on profit.
I wish there were more Casey and Calley Means in this world instead of ever more metabolic and mentally ill society living more like zombies than free human beings.
> In contrast with the huge amount of money that the pharma industry spends in marketing GLP1 drugs to people
Drugs lose their patents and much of the research on novel medications is done in partnerships with universities, etc. Plenty of other scientists unrelated to the drug companies are continuing research through entirely separate funding. But I guess everyone is in the pocket of big pharma?
> not caring about their long term effects but only on profit.
What long term effects? You still haven't elucidated any concerns.
> I wish there were more Casey and Calley Means in this world instead of ever more metabolic and mentally ill society living more like zombies than free human beings.
You can find plenty of them on instagram, youtube, and tiktok. They'll be happy to sell you another fitness device and Yet Another Protein Powder or a pill made out of some plant extract that has minimal to no scientific evidence of efficacy.
Every drug has long term side effects but people are being sold GLP1 as a miracle weight lost pill when the focus should be on reducing all the toxic junk food that is causing the weight gain in the first place.
And yes, many research programs are funded by pharma - the conlict of interests is blatant and getting more people sicker every year.
Honestly, I’m pretty sure you’re very aware of all this so I question your motivations to be openly promoting a drug that interferes directly with cellular metabolism like if you’re selling candy.
You're still not providing any sort of claim as to what actual negative side effects you are concerned about, so I don't really know how to have a serious conversation with you.
"Interfering with cellular metabolism" is a meaningless phrase. Please provide some sort of method of action that you are actually concerned about. What is it that it is doing to cells that we should be concerned about? What scientific evidence is there that this action is unhealthy?
I'm unfortunately expecting this getting worse with massive adoption of the drug but we can start with "Risk of Suicidal Thoughts and thoughts of self-harm with medicines known as GLP-1 receptor agonists,1 including Ozempic (semaglutide), Saxenda (liraglutide) and Wegovy (semaglutide)" - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-statement-ongoing-revi...
By the way - why are you so eager to promote this drug - can you please declare any conflict of interests?
> By the way - why are you so eager to promote this drug - can you please declare any conflict of interests?
The closest thing to a conflict of interest I have is that I am currently seeing great results while taking tirzepatide. I find it significantly easier to choose healthier meals made of whole foods with balanced macros, to eat less in general, and to motivate myself to push back towards the exercise habits I had in my 20s. I have no relation to big pharma, and I have no idea if my index fund tracking retirement plans include Novo Nordisk or Eli Lilly, but if they do, that's the closest thing I have to a financial incentive in these companies doing well.
> we can start with "Risk of Suicidal Thoughts and thoughts of self-harm with medicines known as GLP-1 receptor agonists,1 including Ozempic (semaglutide), Saxenda (liraglutide) and Wegovy (semaglutide)"
Please read the content you are linking. It said that there were some reports so they were beginning to perform a review. The article specifically mentions the review was set to conclude in Nov 2023. Upon seeing this, I figured it would be a good idea to see if the results of the review had come out.
> The PRAC has concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal association between the Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1) – dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide and semaglutide – and suicidal and self-injurious thoughts and actions.
"Yes. I'm a T2 diabetic and have been on an SSRI for years. A couple years ago I was trying to up my dose of Ozempic, as prescribed. Perhaps it was coincidence, but over time I sank into a deep depression and I simply felt like the only reason not to k*l myself was I could never do that to my family. I also developed panic attacks. More fun than a barrel of monkeys!
Since then, I've drastically reduced my carbohydrate intake, stopped the Ozempic, and basically made an almost complete recovery. I haven't had a panic attack in two months, and it was mild."
"Dear Dr Scher. I can confirm a very serious major depressive reaction to Saxenda/Liriglutide. This happened 2 days into 1.8mg dose which was exactly when my appetite diminished. Very, very disappointing . This was in spite of taking long-standing Venlafaxine/Effexor, which for this reaction was useless. After stopping Saxenda, my mental state took about 10 days to restabilize.
I trust this may be of help to other"
"This study was not a random control trial. It was a comparative cohort study, which is an observational study design.
In a randomized control trial, participants are randomly assigned to different groups, with one group receiving the treatment being studied and the other group receiving a placebo or a different treatment. This allows researchers to determine whether the treatment is effective by comparing the outcomes of the two groups.
In a cohort study, researchers observe a group of people over time to see if there is a relationship between certain exposures and outcomes. Participants are not randomly assigned to groups.
The study in the source is specifically a comparative cohort study with an active comparator, new user design.
This means that researchers are comparing the outcomes of two groups of patients: those who are new users of GLP-1 receptor agonists and those who are new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The active comparator is the SGLT-2 inhibitor group. This group is used as a comparison to the GLP-1 receptor agonist group to help researchers determine whether there is an association between the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and an increased risk of suicide-related and self-harm-related events.
It is important to note that cohort studies, like the one described in the source, can only show an association between exposures and outcomes. They cannot prove that one thing causes another."
"Therefore, while the study aims to contribute valuable insights into this potential safety concern, its design and inherent limitations preclude it from making definitive causal statements.
Even if the study finds no association, further research, potentially using different methodologies, would be needed to strengthen the evidence and confidently assert that GLP-1 receptor agonists do not causally increase the risk of suicide-related and self-harm-related events"
Taking this into account I'm still going to stick with my ketogenic diet, thank you very much.
