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

261–270 of 301 posts

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

#261

Post by HyperSane »

yunwal wrote: post #250
HyperSane wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire purpose of fat is to store excess energy for future use because over human evolution food supply was unreliable enough for this to create an evolutionary advantage. Getting fat from eating a lot of food is completely predictable. "The idea that obesity could be avoided or cured with a little bookkeeping and self control" It absolutely can. Again people just don't want to feel bad about not having enough se…

> It absolutely can It can’t. There are many people who, if they simply scaled down their diet without otherwise modifying their nutrient intake/lifestyle, start having health problems well before they lose weight. Hot flashes, fainting, severe stomach pains, nausea.

This sounds false to me. I suppose for someone used to eating 10 to 20 thousand calories per day suddenly going to 1500 would be stressful but if gently tapered no one should have any issues.

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

#262

Post by HyperSane »

perfecthjrjth wrote: post #255
HyperSane wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Calories In Calories Out (CICO) doesn't explain obesity." Yes it does, because it is basically just repeating basic laws of thermodynamics. Obesity is actually just the body working as intended by storing the excess energy for future use during a famine. CICO is why obesity used to be very rare in past when calories were expensive and is now common when calories are very cheap and artificially delicious.

Well, two conceptions of human beings are in conflict: (a) humans are controlled by their own "will" (b) signaling system (biochemical interactions) control stuff. (a) is a cultural intuition. Now many life sciences researchers sell us a hybrid version: both (a) and (b) are true.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri...

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

#263

Post by HyperSane »

kilgnad wrote: post #248
HyperSane wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt the accuracy of calorie consumption data that article is based on. CICO is so fundamental that I would propose that the current rate of obesity is proof that average net calorie surplus has increased.

let's keep it to one thread. I'm ending it here.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri...

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

#264

Post by HyperSane »

kilgnad wrote: post #247
HyperSane wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-reported calorie consumption is worthless. But a reader questions the methodology of the researchers: “My main concern is that the calories are almost assuredly self-reported, which is notoriously unreliable.” Another reader agrees: In the 1980s, we weren’t walking around with a computer in our pockets to look up accurate calorie counts for everything that allowed us to store an accurate list of everything we’ve…

Lots of stretching of the imagination here in attempt to fill in the gaps in your bias. I mean you had to dig for this stuff in order to support your stance. Why not let the facts change your conclusions as an unbiased person should? The fact of the matter is, people weighed less in the 80s then they do today. No amount of stretching can change this quantitative measurement. So something must've changed. What changed…

My bias is for basic laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri...

"The fact of the matter is, people weighed less in the 80s then they do today. "

Because they ate less. Portions were smaller, Food wasn't marketed as much.

"No amount of stretching can change this quantitative measurement."

Self-reported calorie intake is not a reliable quantitative measure.

"You can continue to talk about calories in and calories out just like we can blame the overdose problem on people doing too much heroin."

I really don't understand why you think this statement proves. A heroin overdose IS caused directly by an excess amount of heroin in a given time interval, just like obesity IS caused directly by excessive calories in a given time interval. The time interval for obesity is years instead of hours.

Heroin and obesity are indirectly caused by people getting addicted to the dopamine levels consuming them cause.

You sound a tad like a 9/11 truther insisting on some over complex conspiracy theories to explain something fairly straightforward.

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

#265

Post by eyelidlessness »

phil21 wrote: post #222
eyelidlessness wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m eating basically the same food, basically the same quantities, and I did start paying attention to the calories. Amusingly I started paying closer attention when I was worried about losing too much weight , and when I found myself frequently craving sweets (which I very seldom have since I was a kid).

The simple act of tracking things - even with no intent to change - typically makes me eat far less, or do the activity far more. Anecdotes with friends makes me believe this is quite common. There is literally no way to take in more calories than you expend and not gain weight - short of hyper-specific and exceedingly rare medical conditions you'd be quite aware of. Some people find this easier or harder than others…

> The simple act of tracking things - even with no intent to change - typically makes me eat far less, or do the activity far more.

When I started tracking things so closely, I was already concerned that I’d been losing weight and feeling very strong cravings for sweets which I don’t usually care for. The effect wasn’t that I ate less: I started making an effort to eat more, again much like I used to eat. The biggest change is that eating enough has been a concerted effort rather than fairly automatic.

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

#266

Post by eyelidlessness »

HyperSane wrote: post #211
eyelidlessness wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 le…

Have you every reached 600 pounds? 800? If not why do you think that is? It is because you simply didn't eat enough food to do so.

I reached about 350 lb, and my current weight is just shy of 190. I’m eating almost exactly the same, with some minor adjustments for taste changing over time. What I eat now would still be ill advised for anyone trying to lose weight. The thing that changed is I burn a lot more calories than I used to. Everyone pointing out this basic fact is right, but the focus on calories in is wrong in my case, and I find it pretty odd to totally dismiss the calories burned factor.

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

#267

Post by kilgnad »

HyperSane wrote: post #264
kilgnad wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of stretching of the imagination here in attempt to fill in the gaps in your bias. I mean you had to dig for this stuff in order to support your stance. Why not let the facts change your conclusions as an unbiased person should? The fact of the matter is, people weighed less in the 80s then they do today. No amount of stretching can change this quantitative measurement. So something must've changed. What changed…

My bias is for basic laws of thermodynamics. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri... "The fact of the matter is, people weighed less in the 80s then they do today. " Because they ate less. Portions were smaller, Food wasn't marketed as much. "No amount of stretching can change this quantitative measurement." Self-reported calorie intake is not a reliable quantitative measure. "You can continue…

>I really don't understand why you think this statement proves. A heroin overdose IS caused directly by an excess amount of heroin in a given time interval, just like obesity IS caused directly by excessive calories in a given time interval. The time interval for obesity is years instead of hours.

This is the part you're not getting. You DIRECTLY say you don't understand here, and I am here to confirm that you in actuality DO NOT understand.

A heroin overdose IS directly a result of too much heroin within a time interval. But that answer is too obvious and PEDANTIC. You would be stupid to characterize the opiate epidemic as just people doing too much heroin and that they should do less to improve their health. "Yeah that's the problem with opiates in America, people doing too much of it, I know you guys don't like to hear it, but it's the truth. Just control yourself and do less"

Obviously it's more than that. There's a problem with tolerance, with addiction, the fact that opiates were introduced as addictive pain killers by Purdue Pharma under the name Oxycontin. The story of heroin is much more then the completely idiotic characterization of just "doing too much."

So to bring it back around. The the situation is MUCH more complex then people eating more and becoming fatter.

>You sound a tad like a 9/11 truther insisting on some over complex conspiracy theories to explain something fairly straightforward.

I'll just be blunt. You sound like a fucking idiot for regurgitating something SO OBVIOUS. Look, you're not actually an idiot, so stop acting like one and stop calling me a 9/11 truther.

What's even stupider is that when I tell you that while TECHNICALLY more calories in does make you fatter there's clearly something else going on. Do you see the connection with the metaphor here with heroin? Heroin isn't just about people doing too much of it. There's many underlying reasons here for WHY something happens.

I have experience in this area with people who are overweight. Even the simple answer of calorie density in processed foods increasing due to industrial food manufacturing after the 80s leads to fatter people is a better characterization here.

However that answer above ^^ is inline with your simplistic calorie in-out logic so maybe that explanation can help you "get it".

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

#268

Post by HyperSane »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #266
HyperSane wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you every reached 600 pounds? 800? If not why do you think that is? It is because you simply didn't eat enough food to do so.

I reached about 350 lb, and my current weight is just shy of 190. I’m eating almost exactly the same, with some minor adjustments for taste changing over time. What I eat now would still be ill advised for anyone trying to lose weight. The thing that changed is I burn a lot more calories than I used to. Everyone pointing out this basic fact is right, but the focus on calories in is wrong in my case, and I find it pre…

No one is dismissing calories burned, it is the calories out part of CICO but it is vastly easier to reduce caloric intake than to increase caloric burn. as an example for me it takes an hour of walking to burn 400 - 600 calories.

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

#269

Post by nradov »

Dove wrote: post #254
nradov wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Type 2 diabetes is fundamentally caused by eating too much of carbohydrates. Most type 2 diabetics can put the condition into remission by changing their diet. https://www.virtahealth.com/research There are many people who have cured their obesity with a little bookkeeping and self control. Sue Reynolds and David Goggins are a couple of prominent examples, but there are many others. It's not easy, but it's certainly…

> Type 2 diabetes is fundamentally caused by eating too much of carbohydrates. (Emphasis mine) Fructose, specifically, is the going theory. And I'm a big fan of Virtahealth specifically, and Dr. Fung's approach for treating type 2 diabetes generally. :) However , I'd disagree that we know that that's what causes it. We know that treats it. Cancer is not caused by a lack of chemotherapy, and I think chemotherapy is a…

I have yet to see a type 2 diabetic who didn't eat excessive quantities of carbohydrates before developing the condition. The details of the exact causative mechanism are interesting, but largely irrelevant from a prevention perspective.

My point is that David Goggins is nothing special. He isn't a superhero from the planet Krypton. Anyone can choose to do those things (or at least lesser versions of them). Some people just prefer to sit on the couch eating cookies.

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

#270

Post by nradov »

Dove wrote: post #251
HyperSane wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire purpose of fat is to store excess energy for future use because over human evolution food supply was unreliable enough for this to create an evolutionary advantage. Getting fat from eating a lot of food is completely predictable. "The idea that obesity could be avoided or cured with a little bookkeeping and self control" It absolutely can. Again people just don't want to feel bad about not having enough se…

> The entire purpose of fat is to store excess energy for future use That isn't true. Though it's a primary use, the opening paragraph of the wikipedia article on fat outlines that it actually has many biological functions (and is properly thought of as an organ !): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue > ... because over human evolution food supply was unreliable enough for this to create an evolutionary adva…

You have mixed up a few facts with a lot of "bro-science" there. What you have described is not consistent with our current understanding.

https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson2/

Anyone can build muscle instead of flab if they do sufficient resistance training and eat enough protein. Gains will tend to be slower for women and older people. Arnold Schwarzenegger used a lot of steroids and other PEDS which can certainly accelerate gains, but aren't worth the side effects and legal risks for most people.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sports-news-bodybuildin...

Post reply on HN