News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Besides helping with addictions, it also seems to help with dementia, as well as a bunch of other things.
It's a miracle drug, that should be available cheaply to everyone, but so far it's only for rich people.
I would really hesitate calling it a miracle drug as there are documented side-effects and side-effects yet to be fully understood after long-term use.
Additionally while GLP-1 can reduce caloric intake, it doesn't actually fix the poor dietary choices that got you there in the first place. Like a smoker people will misconstrue having a low BMI with being overall healthy, even though there could be a host of macro and micro-nutritional deficits from fiber to omega-3's to vitamins to antioxidants, and still a relatively high consumption of processed foods with things like added sugar.
So sure it reduces the total amount of poor foods being consumed, but of course does nothing in promoting adoption of nutritionally-positive foods. In one respect, the caloric weigh-loss still is itself a net-positive, hopefully people don't end up masking or cementing their other poor eating habits as a consequence.
This shows an ignorance of how obesity actually works. The primary difference between skinny people and fat people is that fat people are just hungrier. Skinny people have functioning satiation reflexes, while fat people's have been damaged, likely from exposure to highly processed foods during childhood.
Have you learned nothing from the effect of GLP-1 inhibitors? For years, people have been demonizing fat folks as lazy and ignorant, smug in the self-satisfaction that their superior character and intellect could save them from that fate. And now we've apparently learned to bottle willpower, to condense "good dietary choices" into an injection. People take these medicines, and suddenly they find themselves drawn to eat a healthy amount of food, and to eat less sugary and refined crap.
This shows beyond any doubt that people were not making poor choices. They didn't lack willpower. They never had any fundamental character flaws. They just had a broken metabolism that forced them to crave unhealthy levels of unhealthy food. We give them a shot, and somehow this profound flaw in their moral character just vanishes into the wind.
Obesity is a medical problem. It's not an education, a willpower, or a character problem. We have tens of millions of people who have had a core part of their bodies - their satiation reflex, poisoned and damaged by the food industry. And instead of helping them, we declare their poisoning to be a moral failure.
You have learned nothing.
When I was fat hunger had little to do with it. I ate to mask my emotional pain.
Cute condescension (I actually kind of chuckled at the, "You have learned nothing" end, saying it like some growling villain), but you're still too in the weeds. Take it one step further: What causes some people to feel hungrier? The two most common reasons:
Does GLP-1 address either of these as a root cause issue? No, they do not.
More importantly — Are many diseases associated with obesity suddenly magically resolved if you just lose weight? No, they are not. Why? Because you never actually addressed the nutritional needs of your body. Sure you put less crap in, but you're still putting crap in while not putting in the CORRECT nutrients that would otherwise come with a holistic approach of addressing obesity by dietary means.
So if you continue to consume starbucks but instead of a 30oz you get a 10oz because you're on Ozempic, are you any closer to fulfilling your nutritional needs of protein intake, Omega-3 DHA/EPA, the recommended 25g of fiber (and are you distinguishing soluble from insoluble?), your B-vitamins, your potassium, etc? Equally important, are you cutting back on high sodium foods and high-sugar foods? No, GLP-1 does not magically change your eating habits to pick up a leafy salad full of nuts & seeds.
Beyond this, weight-reduction alone may lead to confidence and capability to go out and exercise, get more sunlight, socialize more, etc. — these of course have positive impacts on the body. It's just that if you depend on GLP-1 beyond reaching a target weight without actually changing your habits, then you will still perhaps unknowingly be degrading your body because you don't even have the negative signal that is obesity forewarning you.
NOTE: This is not me fat-shaming or saying people are lazy; I am wholly aware many of these stressors are a result of things outside their control, like societal pressures or corporate marketing teams short-circuiting evolutionary wiring of our neurochemistry. It is anything but easy. DO NOT use a fucking straw-man on me to claim I am these people are lazy or ignorant. (in fact, I'm warning of the same magic pill corporate scheme that got us into this situation in the first place, ironically that is addressing symptoms without ever addressing root causes).
In the vast majority of prescribed cases of Ozempic, GLP-1 is already produced by the body freely; you just have to put the proverbial correct oil in your engine to get it to release. Until those underlying habits change, then you are not sufficiently addressing the nutritional deficits of your body.
The diseases of obesity ARE solved with Ozempic. Because most people who are obese and take Ozempic already know how to eat healthy. They're just drawn to eat unhealthily large portions of healthy foods. The root cause of the problem is that people are simply too hungry. These medications solve that issue. Fat people aren't suffering vitamin, mineral, or fiber deficiencies. They're just eating too much food.
You just don't want to admit the truth, instead you demand that we magically reorganize our entire society and food industry...instead of just letting people take a pill that solves the root problem at its source.
The reason they're too hungry is because of disruptions in signaling hormones like Ghrelin and Leptin that are not properly responding due to the consumption of unnatural ultra-processed foods. This induces a destructive feedback loop that leads to REDUCED satiety and consequently INCREASED hunger. For example, if you drink Kool-Aid with 2 cups of sugar in it, the concentration of which is a) a sugar density impossible to find in nature besides maybe honey, b) lacking other insulin-regulating and satiety-inducing nutrients — most notably fiber but also say xylitol — then you will send insulin surging which so happens to have an impact on ghrelin and leptin signaling molecules to the brain. It is extremely difficult to make this happen if you eat whole foods. I eat LOADS of healthy food all the time — as much as I want! Yet my BMI remains perfectly low. This is not the issue.
Edit: I should add in reference to my previous comment that the other factor is the feedback loop of environmental stressors, elevating cortisol and leading to an increased fixation on fast dopamine hits, which of course, if there is a potato chip bag or fries in the area, will look more appealing. In some respects, it's little different than substance abuse of heroin albeit to a lesser degree.
It's not "unhealthily large portions of healthy foods," — it's unhealthily dense portions of unhealthy foods, primarily.
Yes, they quite often do. By the very nature of consuming unhealthy foods in high quantities leading to obesity, they are as a matter of zero-sum NOT consuming healthy nutrients, such as fiber. You don't seem to understand the impact fiber specifically has on weight regulation, or the insulin cycle and the impacts on hormonal signaling molecules Ghrelin and Leptin. Educate yourself in these arenas and you'll have a better understanding of the obesity epidemic. I promise you it's not because people are eating "too much healthy food" lol.
Don't just take it from me:
https://hmri.org.au/news-and-stories/ozempic-helps-weight-loss-making-you-feel-full-certain-foods-can-do-same-thing/
This is all true, but if overweight is your most urgent health issue, and if the excess fat is causing other health issues, simply reducing weight by whatever means can improve health, and there are virtuous cycles too, if you are lighter you can move more, maybe you feel better about your body and treat it better, an upward spiral. The epidemic of overweight (or more specifically over-fat) is causing so many cascade effects here that it's well worth treating aggressively.
What I'd like to know is are these beneficial side effects just due to the weight loss, or are they available to normal weight people who take the drug? Is it actually the drug, or would they get the same benefits by losing weight some other way?
Anecdotal, but I think this tracks with what you're asking. I have never been obese, but due to family history of both connective tissue disorders and diabetes it has always been extremely important to me that I keep my weight in a normal range. It took an intense amount of mental effort on my part, religious food tracking and extensive exercise for decades.
When I started on a GLP-1 (due to a weird health situation that's not really relevant), the amount of mental energy I needed to expend to maintain my weight was suddenly gone. I don't feel sugar cravings like I used to, so I don't need to stay so vigilant about my diet. I don't spend my days monitoring my intake, planning out a rigorous fasting schedule, working out more than I'm naturally inclined to just to counteract that brownie I couldn't stop myself from eating. It's both a literal and emotional weight off. I am taking a very low dose but even so I honestly can't believe the difference. I am one of the ones who was will-powering through calories in/calories out and it was miserable. Now it's just...not.
Fair points, thanks! You raise a good point that if the weight-loss itself is inhibiting your capacity to otherwise want to, say, go running or be more active then you can break the destructive feedback loop and give it another go. In that respect, I'm curious if these drugs are generally prescribed with no limit or prescribed until reaching a target weight? I don't know.
To your second paragraph, I'd like to know too. My guess is the benefits at least in the short-term are similar to what can be achieved by maintaining a healthy diet (Mediterranean / dash / mind diet, notably) — again, at least in the short-term. If poor eating habits persist even if at a lower caloric level, then eventually as those nutrients run out, things will wear down no differently than a poorly maintained engine.
I do agree with the consensus here - it's weirdly moralistic to say fat people should just do willpower harder, if there a drug that works for so many. It's a lot like telling an anorexic to just eat more. Eating disorders are complicated. A drug that fixes the appetite and improves blood sugar handling is an enormous improvement compared to what we had before.
I've never been fat, but have been eating disordered in the other direction and there is no way I could have been convinced to eat more just because it would have been healthier. If there had been some drug to fix my relationship to food back then, I feel like nobody would have said "just use willpower and eat better."
It's interesting that this strikes at the heart of left vs right mindset, at least in America. Conservatives have a tendency to romanticize the notion of free will and individual freedom; that you alone are responsible for the choices you make absent of anything else like — will over systemic forces or regions of your own brain working against you. Whereas the left has a stronger tendency to recognize these other variables that apply pressure in such a way as to shape the path of least resistance in what you may choose to do.
It's like a story I heard about the mindset of Americans vs. Germans when they have a vehicular accident. In America, blame is often quickly pointed to the person for skidding off the road while in Germany they may send a team of engineers to assess how to reduce the environment to prohibit this from being possible in the first place (e.g., putting up a guard-rail). This is surely exaggerated and America of course has civil engineers, but you get the idea of a default state of responsibility.
Maybe the reality of executive responsibility and external forces is somewhere in the middle. Nevertheless, a systemic problem tends to require a systematic solution. So I definitely don't fault obese people for not being able to get skinny. I agree: definitely the wrong mindset!
My main concern is that if the cost of this weight loss is a masking of symptoms and warning-signs of other poor dietary habits, could that result in even more people suffering ailments kicked under the rug just because they perceive themselves to be healthy when looking in a mirror? (e.g., the smoker arguments of old).
Expecting NO side-effects is an unrealistic objective.
You contradict yourself when you claim there have been no long-term studies, then say it's been used for 20 years, and that's how they discovered the weight loss SIDE-EFFECT.
It certainly does get to the bottom of one of the worst aspects of obesity - overeating. You are assuming that all obese people are eating poor quality food, but that isn't always the case. Often they are eating high quality food, they are just eating too much of it. This address that issue, reduces cravings, and teaches them to eat less. It also seems to help in reducing cravings for poor quality food.
And you are avoiding the addiction issues. That alone makes this drug worth exploring further.
The real issue with this drug isn't the lack of research, it's the fact that it is difficult to access for the average person. Here is a drug that could go a long way in reducing some of the most pressing health issues in our society - obesity, addictions, dementia, etc., and yet insurance companies won't cover it. The cost of the drug would be far cheaper than the associated costs to a society who allows those serious health issues to exist unchecked.
We know that overeating — barring aforementioned edge-case scenarios — is primarily a result of societal stressors and junk/processed-food intake.
I repeat: Every single thing ozempic does, a healthy diet can do and more.
No, this is not true. There is no evidence of this. Some people indeed do have some thyroid problems or are already diebetic and this causes problems with their hormones, true; but I already addressed this and this is an extreme edge case relative to the vast majority of those prescribed drugs like ozempic.
Obesity is a symptom; ozempic addresses the symptom — not the root problem that caused that symptom. The symptom should be a signal to resolve the root problem. If you lose a big symptom, you're less likely to address the problems under the hood. If you never resolve the root problem then you are likely still engaging in the same poor dietary habits that will lead to OTHER problems down the road. This, itself, is an inherent side-effect.
I work a job and people are often angry, frustrated, and sometimes yelling. I get these cortisol spikes daily as a result. I can't afford to quit the job right now.
The cortisol spikes lead me to crave low quality food. I have considered a GLP-1.
For someone like me, I realize that in a better situation, I wouldn't deal with many cortisol spikes at work and then crave eating garbage and too much garbage. I understand the rationality behind your logic.
But still I am not sure I see a better option. My job is a 40 hour a week job and pays the bills. I don't have major skills in another area and have some problems in my resume.
I suppose I could retrain, but the problem is there would eventually be a period with no cash coming in and then things become risky.
I believe these cortisol spikes are directly causing some of my cravings. They probably have other horrible impacts too. I take antiinflammatory medication every day that I work to try to prevent inflamation, but that is also risky.
Do you suggest for me a GLP-1 is a bad idea? In our capitalist society, in which I can't temporarily opt out of working without fear of homelessness, GLP-1 seems like a necessary evil.
Economic class factors into the equation. I can afford the cheapest GLP-1 while working. I can't afford to stop working.
Up front: I'm no doctor or dietician. Only that nutrition is a big interest of mine both personally and along helping my aging parents with their ailments.
You raise fair points and I want to bring this section back from where the other user and I were going: I don't think GLP-1 drugs inherently bad. It seems you have a good grasp as to the bigger picture and consequences of perhaps masking root problems. Mind you, cortisol spikes can be a result of all kinds of things. Generally-speaking (and with the caveat I'm no expert), most things I've read seem to suggest that cravings start with outside stressors, which then lead you to look for short-term fixes; you then can trapped in this feedback loop of rising stress -> quick dopamine hit. Without taking away the key stressors like your work or lack of time to engage in other positive habits (exercise, sunlight exposure, healthy sleep schedule), that craving will likely persist with or without GLP-1; the only difference is at LEAST it would be in less total quantity. At LEAST your obesity won't inhibit your ability to exercise (which itself reduces cortisol). The bad news is it doesn't alter your eating habits and compel you to suddenly start eating salads on its own; that will still take some willpower and a healthy state of mind. But perhaps you can surf the wave of confidence that comes with weight-loss? I don't know.
Thank you for your candid comment!
Again - So What?
So it's not perfect. So it doesn't solve the entire obesity issue. So what?
Do you think think that obese people haven't tried every diet, changing their lifestyles, changing their eating habits, pledged to eat healthier, etc.? You act like all you have to do is inform these ignorant fatsos that they should eat better and all their problems will be solved.
They know all this, and have tried over and over, and still couldn't beat it. So if a new drug comes along, and accomplishes what years of heartbreak couldn't, what's wrong with that? With their cravings under control, it will be easier to make the rest of the improvements they need to make. I doubt there are too many people who have used their Ozempic weight loss to INCREASE their intake of junk food. Generally, it has encouraged people to improve their diets, when all previous attempts had been discouraging.
Bottom line: It is still the tool that has worked for thousands of people, when nothing else has. That will contribute to an overall benefit to the health of society. It may not be the only answer, it may not be the perfect answer, but it is still a net benefit to society.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Can you please explain what you're actually trying to argue about and why one is so vehemently defending the perceived perfection of Ozempic? Are you on it? Is someone you know on it? I'm curious because it seems you are vociferously defending it when I'm being quite reasonable and even citing sources that went completely and utterly ignored.
To your, ""So what?" — Turns out I'm simply echoing what experts have already said:
https://hmri.org.au/news-and-stories/ozempic-helps-weight-loss-making-you-feel-full-certain-foods-can-do-same-thing/
I already explained the So-What part several times; the consequences of masking root problems by simply addressing symptoms. Thought I was pretty clear, which again, I even cited medical experts warning of the same thing — that, too, went ignored.
I'm not saying that obese individuals haven't tried to change their habits; if it was always easy then of course nobody would be fat. That doesn't change the underlying health risks of poor dietary habits and might make it even LESS likely that they conquer this challenge given the facade that is their BMI has improved; but that is of course a facade; a thin veil masking the nutritional needs underneath. Like getting a paint job when you car needs an oil change.
Put another way: Go back to my very original comment and point out anything I wrote that was factually incorrect. I'm growing tired of playing these rhetorical games and selective-hearing; time to start using sources.
Factually correct and wrong in every way that matters.
Have you struggled with oveeating? Food is as addictive as nicotine but you have to have it every day, just not too much.
That's not realistic. Not for the majority. It's just not.
Sorry, but still no sources.
Perhaps more importantly, still attacking a straw-man argument that I never personally made.
I will repeat the following that keeps conveniently being ignored:
Again, I just want to again reiterate: Literally everything Ozempic does positively, from dementia to cravings to weight-loss, can be achieved by eating a healthy diet. Period. Full stop. This isn't like antibiotics where you can't just take vitamin C and eliminate C-diff. Unless you have problems creating GLP-1, all the benefits of Ozempic — KEY POINT: AND MORE because you're actually avoiding anti-nutrients and taking in a diverse array of nutrients — can be achieved by simply eating what scientists have already concluded as being the healthiest diet: A Mediterranean plant-based diet. (and that doesn't even mean excluding all meats).
And no, I'm not saying it should be taken off the market; only that I'm practicing skepticism and not calling it a miracle drug because it masks a poor habit; it doesn't fix it. If Ozempic caused someone to stop eating all poor food and start eating their leafy greens and stop chugging starbucks coffees and adopt the scientist-recommended Mediterranean diet, then sure, I might be more likely to call it that. It does not.
https://hmri.org.au/news-and-stories/ozempic-helps-weight-loss-making-you-feel-full-certain-foods-can-do-same-thing/
Edit: Correcting a negative.
"Again, I just want to again reiterate: Literally everything Ozempic does positively, from dementia to cravings to weight-loss, can be achieved by eating a healthy diet. Period. Full stop."
I'm not ignoring you. It's just not relevant. People could eat better, but nobody does. I see the people around me all my life everyone is dieting and resolving to change their behavior and buying healthier food and going to weight watchers and having bariatric surgery and they are NOT losing weight and they are getting diabetes and suffering chronic pain and many of them are becoming disabled.
If anyone could do it, it wouldn't be a society wide issue. 60-70% of the people in my city are overweight and the percentage goes up over time. Sure, technically, anyone could change their diet, but they won't.
Maybe we need to change our transportation infrastructure so biking is easier and walking more reasonable. Maybe we need to change our food regulation so our groceries and restaurant food is less processed. Maybe we need to change our taxation structure to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods. Maybe we need to do all that, but people know what healthy diets consist of and they DO NOT eat that way. Sugar and fat and cheese and meat and deep fried deep fry are delicious and people will eat delicious food far in excess of their needs and telling people to eat their vegetables is tone deaf, counter - productive, and ultimately, cruel.
Nobody around me is suffering from malnutrition. Meat is very nutritious. That is why our bodies crave it. Bread is fortified with micronutrients. Yes, eating more leafy greens would benefit basically everyone where I live. But Lectures are worse than useless, when obesity is killing and maiming people every day.
Your points are valid and believe it or not I largely agree. We are largely products of our environment. If there are potato chips in the house, I am more likely to eat potato chips. At scale, if there is a McDonald's on the corner or chips in the grocery store, people are more likely to eat said junk food out of both convenience and dopamine fixation and median societal stress levels leading to elevated cortisol and so on.
I don't think they changes the points I'm trying to raise, which are:
Concerns for symptom masking leading to a false sense of believing you are healthy and not nutritionally deficient.
Deflecting attention away from the root issues causing obesity: deregulation of processed foods and socioeconomic inequality and societal stressors (all which COULD and should be addressed).
Put another way: My primary concern is people being lulled into a false sense of security. If pain is a signal to change something, then looking in the mirror and seeing your weight can be a similar motivator for change all the same for people. If people taking this drug get positive feedback, they may then lack that normal feedback for motivation to change their underlying dietary habits. If this means that while obesity drops, the number of people who adopt better dietary habits overall decreases in kind, then we're setting ourselves up for various disease epidemics down the road. Systemically, there's no doubt you're right that most people struggle to get through this; but that's not to say there aren't people who do manage to make lifestyle changes for the better. It is possible; and are so-called (as the other user called them) "miracle drugs" further impeding that? Are we losing the thread?
If all we do going through life is chasing a revolving number of symptoms and side-effects, we will never get to the heart of the root problems.
But as I wrote elsewhere, I am open to the notion that because these problems begin in a unnatural manner in the way they short-circuit our evolutionary biological circuitry, then perhaps the solutions are unnatural as well. For me to change my opinion, would need studies showing that people are more likely to adopt healthy lifestyle choices, particularly diet, following taking Ozempic for a period of time.
This is going beyond the scope of our conversation probably, but this is flatly not true. My body doesn't crave it any more than it can be programmed to crave a popsicle, soda, ultra-salty fast-food burger. One can crave heroin or meth, too; it doesn't mean it's good for you. Let us please not enable carnivore pseudoscience bullshit. Not to say some meat, notably cold-water fish, isn't good for you however; in limited quantities in accordance to the Mediterranean diet, yes, it can be healthy.
Extreme malnutrition tends to have to do with deficiencies in macronutrients; raw calories. Back in the day, we didn't live long enough for micronutrients to have such a profound impact. Macronutrients, in terms of calories, true are easy to get. But people are profoundly deficient on a variety of micro and phytonutrients, ranging from fiber to antioxidant intake to B12 (yes, even 1/3 of meat eaters are deficient), to Omega-3s, to Potassium. These are facts, and if you need sources they're easily found.
I believe everything you have said here. I haven't looked it up recently but it's certainly plausible. I don't think ozempic is a miracle drug, just one drug that will be widely prescribed like statins and blood pressure drugs have been.
Certainly it would be better to get the benefits of ozempic from diet if we could. We should pursue those other avenues I mentioned earlier. I see people struggling with access to Ozempic and other glp1 meds every day and speak to on average half a dozen of them, and the denials and roadblocks out healthcare system throws up has worn on me.
That's fair! Comparing to statins and bp meds is a good comparison.
All drugs have side-effects, so what?
You are focusing on the weight loss issue, which is a miracle in itself. So what if they still make unhealthy choices? They are still losing massive amounts of weight, which is us already a HUGE improvement. You can't let perfection be the enemy. So it doesn't solve 100% of the problem, solving 75% is still a worthy improvement.
Then there are all the other things it does. It reduces cravings in addicts of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, making it much easier to quit. So an unhealthy person with addictions and diabetes can take this drug, get their diabetes under control, lose a ton of weight, and quit smoking and drinking and whatever else, and we're supposed to avoid this drug because there might be some side effects? As long as the side-effects aren't dying 20 years sooner, they're better off with the drug.
It also seems to help with dementia, and other drugs.
You know, all those things like weight loss and addiction control are side-effects, right? They are an unintended consequence of taking the drug, which is what a side-effects is. Sometimes side-effects are bad, sometimes they're good.
All drugs have side-effects, sure, and key to note 1) some drugs have more; some have less. 2) some have extensive longterm research. Others do not. While ozempic-like drugs have been around for 20 years, for the vast majority of that time they were centered on treatment of diabetes, which as you said they realized it had beneficial side-effects alongside the bad like weight-loss. This is simply why I say to caution anything as being a "miracle drug," unless you wish to define that yourself — because that at least to me implies no side-effects and implies a comprehensive resolution of the problem as opposed to a masking of the root causes, while also having been thoroughly studie. At least with say antibiotics, sure, there are some serious side-effects; but they get to the heart of the issue and eliminate the bacteria. Moreover it's a solution to a problem we cannot yet resolve in any other way. In the vast majority of cases where ozempic is being prescribed, weight-loss, that is not the case.
I'd rather not repeat myself too much but it is again like smoking. Tobacco and pharmaceuticals would hail cigarettes as "miracle drugs" because the long-term research had yet to bear out what many had long feared: that the weight loss comes with a hefty a price. Well, in kind, I am concerned there is a hefty price and anything too good to be true usually is — especially when it comes to pharmaceutical marketing.
Again, I just want to again reiterate: Literally everything Ozempic does positively, from dementia to cravings to weight-loss, can be achieved by eating a healthy diet. Period. Full stop. This isn't like antibiotics where you can just take vitamin C and eliminate C-diff. Unless you have problems creating GLP-1, all the benefits of Ozempic — KEY POINT: AND MORE because you're actually avoiding anti-nutrients and taking in a diverse array of nutrients — can be achieved by simply eating what scientists have already concluded as being the healthiest diet: A Mediterranean plant-based diet. (and that doesn't even mean excluding all meats).
And no, I'm not saying it should be taken off the market; only that I'm practicing skepticism and not calling it a miracle drug because it masks a poor habit; it doesn't fix it. If Ozempic caused someone to stop eating all poor food and start eating their leafy greens and stop chugging starbucks coffees and adopt the scientist-recommended Mediterranean diet, then sure, I might be more likely to call it that. It does not.
Generally, most people we're talking about here don't have dietary nutritional deficiencies. You'd have to specifically eat an unbalanced diet, like chicken nuggets for every meal, for that to happen.
I would bet that anyone prescribed ozempic has also talked with their doctor about their diet before starting.
This is false. The processed food that makes up a majority of our modern staples is well known for being nutritionally deficient. A significant portion of the population is deficient in things like iron, calcium, magnesium, and omega 3s.
Can you elaborate? If you're taking Ozempic for obesity, then in the vast majority of cases there is generally a nutritional deficiency at the heart of your diet — that includes missing nutrients like fiber, or adding anti-nutrients in the realm of added sugar. Unless you have some thyroid issue or are already diabetic, etc., which would require a different sort of intervention.
In dealing with my mom's ailments and navigating the medical system, most general doctors don't know jack shit about nutrition, and there is no mandatory referral to a dietician before prescription for ozempic.
Miracles don’t exist
No, but metaphors do.
Why you butt hurt and downvote my comment then agree with me? Fucking weird dude.
Maybe because you're acting like an dick.
No, I’m being a dick.
Sorry guys, I’m more of a dick than either of you two could ever hope to be.
😔
Booooo, you probably cheated! I bet you use cheat codes.
I didn't agree with you.
So miracles exist?