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
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.