Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 301 posts

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#191

Post by wincy »

msrenee wrote: post #152
HDThoreaun wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depressed people take ssri’s their entire life. People with ADHD take adderal or the like. I don’t see any reason to think of obesity as a different type of disease. Some people just find it extremely difficult to keep off weight, it doesn’t matter what kind of food they’re eating. Yes they could eat less, just like I could keep my thermostat at 45 in the winter to save on my heating bill. But that’s not a realistic…

If the weight stays off even after 10 years on the drug, then that's great in my book. Nicotine, caffeine, and bariatric surgery all reduce your appetite in the short run, but your body eventually adapts and your weight starts climbing again. Until we've got more than a couple years of data, I'm not holding out hope that this drug won't eventually lose its punch for maintaining a lower weight. The main problem to my…

It’s funny because I signed up to get Wegovy shots and still haven’t gotten approval, but I started dieting in preparation and I’ve lost 15 pounds this month. I’m eating red meat and the authentic, bubbly living kimchi from the Asian market that they keep in a stinky fridge separate from everything else.

But people act like I have three heads when they ask me how I lost weight and I answer honestly. They just feel like it has to be a net negative somehow, that it’s not allowed that I eat prime ribeyes (just one, I’m not that hungry m) every night and lose weight.

A month ago I was throwing up every day and eating 5000+ calories per day. I hope I don’t go back this time.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#192

Post by Rury »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #45
ancientworldnow wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans on average eat 400-700 more calories per day than in the 1970's. That explains it pretty well.

That doesn't explain anything, it's a tautology. This is like saying the reason why rich people are rich is that they make more money than they spend.

That's not quite a tautology. A tautology would be: the reason people are rich, is because they are wealthy.

What he's essentially saying is: people are fat, because they eat too much. "Eating too much" does not necessarily or literally mean "fat". Likewise, "making more money than you spend" is not another way of saying "rich", as it's possible you can "make more money than you spend" and still not be rich.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#193

Post by eyelidlessness »

HyperSane wrote: post #162
wonderwonder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Diabetes patients think people with obesity are stealing their drug, as it’s currently only approved for the treatment of T2D (though FDA approval for the treatment of obesity may come as soon as this summer.) People with obesity are angry that obesity isn’t recognized as a disease. And users who can’t afford it say they’ve been abandoned by Big Pharma." Always amazing when an article is verified in real time

With very few exceptions obesity is simply the result of eating more calories than needed for a long time. Very obese people eat a LOT of food. 10,000 calories/day for years is not uncommon.

From high school through nearly all of my adult life I’ve been obese. For the last several years my weight has barely fluctuated, but it’s fluctuated between caution about being underweight and a few pounds “overweight” that barely even count. I’ve eaten almost exactly the same the whole time. The two factors which changed:

- I take ADHD meds, amphetamines, which are appetite suppressants. They haven’t made me eat less, and they’ve reinforced “bad” eating habits I used to have before I lost so much weight, specifically reinforcing my tendency to eat one, large, meal per day.

- I’m much more active than I used to be, because I got a pup who needs the activity and with whom I like to be active.

My caloric intake is about the same as it’s always been. Once I actually paid attention to it I realized it wasn’t even very high. I very seldom reach the recommended 2000 calories diet metrics are based on. I still don’t understand how eating that way made me obese, but I have to assume now I was just absurdly sedentary.

I got lectures like this about caloric intake for years and always found it interesting but confusing! How was I so fat and never eaten much?

I’m not saying this applies to anyone else, but it’s bothered me for decades that I’d been told calories in -> obesity meanwhile my own caloric intake had next to nothing to do with my body mass.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#194

Post by Rury »

anovikov wrote: post #26

Cynically speaking, main reason people lose weight, is looks and advantage in dating it gives (unless they are morbidly obese and at risk of severe illness or death due to that, of course). If there was a $25 a month drug that lets everyone become skinny, then what's the point? Advantage will cease to exist.

Perhaps some people have that mindset, but a lot of people do it for health. And I know some people may find that BS, but if you have ever lost significant amounts of weight before, you know how much better you feel and function.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#195

Post by agsqwe »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #168
pwinnski wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware that you're upset because of shortages in the medicine you need. I think your beef should be with the pharma company seeking to maximize profits by constraining supply such that they are easily overwhelmed by off-label use, not with people seeking effective medical treatment. There's a common meme among what I've seen from diabetics complaining about the shortages: that this is a tik-tok thing, or prompted…

pharma company seeking to maximize profits by constraining supply They have a monopoly on the drug, what's the evidence they are constraining supply? It makes no sense, the price is set, the more they supply the more money they make.

I think what's meant here it's that the manufacturer chose to target specific patient groups (T2D) and commercial insurances to get the highest profit per dose. About 40% of adults in the US are obese, they could have made the drug available at much lower cost and get their profits from economies of scale. Instead, the production is low and the focus is narrow.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#196

Post by kilgnad »

HyperSane wrote: post #162
wonderwonder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Diabetes patients think people with obesity are stealing their drug, as it’s currently only approved for the treatment of T2D (though FDA approval for the treatment of obesity may come as soon as this summer.) People with obesity are angry that obesity isn’t recognized as a disease. And users who can’t afford it say they’ve been abandoned by Big Pharma." Always amazing when an article is verified in real time

With very few exceptions obesity is simply the result of eating more calories than needed for a long time. Very obese people eat a LOT of food. 10,000 calories/day for years is not uncommon.

1 in 3 people in the US are obese. It is not just about eating more calories than needed for a long time. The story is much much more complicated then that given that 1 in 3 people are obese.

It's like saying an overdose on heroin is simply someone doing too much heroin at a time.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#197

Post by kilgnad »

HyperSane wrote: post #178
AdrianB1 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend that is a doctor specialized in metabolic problems told me that around 5% of the cases of obesity have some medical cause, not eating too much. 5% is low, but it is a lot more than "very few exceptions". (Disclaimer: the number is for Europe, I have no idea what is in US)

All obesity is fundamentally caused by eating too much because fat contains energy that HAS to come from food.

No. Absorption rates are different. Liquefied fat of the same calories translates to more fat then plant with the same calories.

That's just an extreme example. The real culprit is processed foods.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#198

Post by rhinoceraptor »

Rury wrote: post #192
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain anything, it's a tautology. This is like saying the reason why rich people are rich is that they make more money than they spend.

That's not quite a tautology. A tautology would be: the reason people are rich, is because they are wealthy. What he's essentially saying is: people are fat, because they eat too much. "Eating too much" does not necessarily or literally mean "fat". Likewise, "making more money than you spend" is not another way of saying "rich", as it's possible you can "make more money than you spend" and still not be rich.

The answers that are interesting and worth discussing, are things like the introduction of hyperpalatable foods, excess oxidized omega 6 polyunsaturated fats, excess carbohydrates, excess fructose, etc., the debates rage on.

The answer that is not interesting is simply saying that people take in more calories than they expend, because it it tautologically true. People now are more health-conscious than at any point in human history. Basically no one wants to be fat, yet most people are, and we have far higher rates of chronic disease.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#199

Post by rhinoceraptor »

fourseventy wrote: post #144
bluedevilzn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is equivalent to saying, you don’t need a cure for AIDS. You can just avoid getting it by not having any sex. This is easier for some people but not a solution for the general population. Similarly, eating less is easier for some people while others are genetically or psychologically predisposed to eating more than they need.

No it's not. You can avoid getting fat by not overeating, but if you do end up getting fat you can cure it with diet and exercise. You can't cure AIDS.

To a first approximation, losing weight isn't possible in the long term. There is enormous social pressure not to be fat. Yet the vast, overwhelming majority of people who try, cannot do it.

Re: Diabetes drug Mounjaro was available at $25/month, then increased to $1k/month

#200

Post by Rury »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #198
Rury wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite a tautology. A tautology would be: the reason people are rich, is because they are wealthy. What he's essentially saying is: people are fat, because they eat too much. "Eating too much" does not necessarily or literally mean "fat". Likewise, "making more money than you spend" is not another way of saying "rich", as it's possible you can "make more money than you spend" and still not be rich.

The answers that are interesting and worth discussing, are things like the introduction of hyperpalatable foods, excess oxidized omega 6 polyunsaturated fats, excess carbohydrates, excess fructose, etc., the debates rage on. The answer that is not interesting is simply saying that people take in more calories than they expend, because it it tautologically true. People now are more health-conscious than at any point i…

You're entitled to find his or anyone's answer not interesting, but what he said is not a tautology. Just because it's obvious does not make it tautological. But in any case, the matter really is as simple as people eating too much nowadays. Evolutionary speaking, we didn't eat 3 meals every day, let alone all highly calorie packed ones. Food was also relatively quite scarce for much of civilization, until modern preservation techniques like refrigeration came along. Heck, we didn't have many of the palatable foods that we have today, just 50 years ago, and those which we did were not in the same abundance as they are today.

Fact of the matter is, no one wants to accept that they eat too much, nor do they want to eat less when it is pleasureful, nor do they want to work at changing their habits. But it is very much a cause behind modern diseases.

Post reply on HN