51–60 of 1001 posts
It's a pretty sad thought that everybody will be on a drug that keeps weight in check while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet. Weight is certainly an important factor but there is more to a healthy life.
People in the Netherlands eat such shit food — but they are so healthy because they move a lot and aren’t obese.
I’m not sure that food quality is as important as we sometimes hope it is (after all, we pay for quality)
FWIW, I was prescribed a GLP-1, but my insurance will not cover it. It's incredibly expensive out of pocket.
What about compounding pharmacies like Hims.com? It's $400/mo month to month but $200/mo if you pay a year upfront.
Although tirzepatide just got knocked off the shortage list last week so it could become harder to get in compounded form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding GLP-1 agonists can actually modulate the reward pathway reducing people's appetite for toxic diets. We're not socially caught up yet to this information. I suspect there are folks who believe that regardless of similar outcome (reduction of toxic diet), that changing diet without medication is superior to those who change their behavior through pharmacological intervention. It's like the pre-199…
You can literally do the same thing by eating a healthy diet for 2-4 weeks.
There's some evidence that Ozempic improves general impulse control, e.g decreasing alcohol consumption [0], which the article mentions. Also, as Tyler Cowen writes [1], this is probably going to translate into big improvements for animal welfare: > People lose weight on these drugs because they eat less, and eating less usually means eating less meat. And less meat consumption results in less factory farming. This s…
> big improvements for animal welfare Is it? It might reduce the amount of animals killed, sure, but it won't improve the well-being of the ones that are still raised.
I personally detest and avoid all medicines other than antibiotics and vaccines. Pharmaceuticals have a long track record of harboring “side effects” that only become apparent years later.
In general, why are we surprised that the chronic use of any substance has negative effects? Humans evolved for thousands of years eating food and drinking water. Regularly consuming anything else is an abberration and self-experiment.
It's a pretty sad thought that everybody will be on a drug that keeps weight in check while most people will still eat a basically toxic diet. Weight is certainly an important factor but there is more to a healthy life.
I'm super satisfied just having an apple or two now. The "omg I need to eat, ohh a burger" is gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> big improvements for animal welfare Is it? It might reduce the amount of animals killed, sure, but it won't improve the well-being of the ones that are still raised.
While this entire chain of thought seems a bit far fetched, I think the reasoning here is that if you lower the demand for meat, you don’t have to resort to factory farming.
Let's be real. If demand for meat declines, producers will have to double down on "factories" in order to remain solvent.
I don’t want this to come out insensitive or from under the rock, but why is taking a drug a novel & cool idea (all of a sudden/recently) as opposed to good old fashioned working out and not eating more than what you need? okay, this drug is all kinds of great and it’s the next best thing since green grapes, still not eating more and workout is better than taking drugs that effect your brain right? Are doctors requir…
Why do you think that telling people to “just stop being fat” will suddenly start working?
There's some evidence that Ozempic improves general impulse control, e.g decreasing alcohol consumption [0], which the article mentions. Also, as Tyler Cowen writes [1], this is probably going to translate into big improvements for animal welfare: > People lose weight on these drugs because they eat less, and eating less usually means eating less meat. And less meat consumption results in less factory farming. This s…
> big improvements for animal welfare Is it? It might reduce the amount of animals killed, sure, but it won't improve the well-being of the ones that are still raised.
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.