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

How long til we're all on Ozempic?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#291

Post by crooked-v »

akira2501 wrote: post #200
kelseyfrog wrote: post #24

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…

> chemical intervention is a moral weakness. As a default it is. And that's what it became. We stopped trying any other methods. Come in the door, have a set of symptoms that check all the boxes, walk out in 30 minutes with a prescription, doctor's office gets a bonus. Institutional psychiatric treatment is drugs first actual treatment later. This is a _social_ problem. It should be discussed and addressed as such. Y…

> As a default it is.

Why?

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#292

Post by bozhark »

arcticbull wrote: post #105
rootusrootus wrote: post #10

I'd think it more likely that it'll be one of the next generation drugs, but I do agree with the premise that it will be really common. A few weeks ago I started a low dose of tirzepatide (aka Mounjaro, aka Zepbound) and the side effects are interesting. The biggest negative, which just takes adjustment, is drastically lower stomach capacity. Used to be that two eggs and two pieces of toast was breakfast. Now I bette…

> "Just eat less and exercise more" is trite. If it were that easy, we'd all be in fantastic shape. Studies show it just doesn't work. There was a massive (18,000,000 people) cohort analysis published in 2023 that showed the likelihood of someone losing 5% of their body weight in any given year was 1 in 11 and the likelihood of going from severely obese to normal weight is 1 in 1667. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/…

This is absurd.

Caloric intake and outtake is just that.

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#293

Post by Maxatar »

bozhark wrote: post #282

Why would you ever take a pill for weight loss? That’s seems entirely fucked up

What is inherently wrong with taking a pill for weight loss?

I can understand being cautious about side-effects or efficacy, but if a pill existed that resulted in weight loss and was side-effect free, I can't imagine what would be inherently wrong about taking it.

Would it be preferable if it were a powder, or a cream? Is it the specific delivery format that has you concerned?

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#294

Post by borroka »

patmcc wrote: post #138
arcticbull wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Just eat less and exercise more" is trite. If it were that easy, we'd all be in fantastic shape. Studies show it just doesn't work. There was a massive (18,000,000 people) cohort analysis published in 2023 that showed the likelihood of someone losing 5% of their body weight in any given year was 1 in 11 and the likelihood of going from severely obese to normal weight is 1 in 1667. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/…

>>>Studies show it just doesn't work. It's not that "eat less and exercise more" doesn't work, it's that nobody does it, because it's really, really hard. Calories in/Calories out is both completely true and completely useless for actual humans. edit: that's unfair, mostly useless

Given that a few decades ago obesity and overweight rates were nowhere near what they are today, this shows that a large part of the population is weak, fragile, and not very interested in their well-being.

I want to emphasize that a few decades ago, people were much thinner in the Western world and did not hate their lives because they could not eat a triple cheeseburger, go hungry constantly, or feel physically deprived. Those were my parents and my grandparents, I know them.

But if you show them hyper-caloric food that makes them feel like crap, they can't say no. It's disappointing. And the same can be said for addiction to social media, horrible TV series, and constant music everywhere.

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#295

Post by sweeter »

sbelskie wrote: post #235
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other countries do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change4Life

Is there any evidence it’s effective? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_Kingdo...

the UK has basically become the US by most metrics. This includes the increasing privatization of health services, transport, etc... and the excessive commodification of basic necessities like housing.

I find that saying that health initiatives don't work by vaguely gesturing at a country, is not a structurally sound argument. Its like the sentiment here is: "is the fact that we include Pizza as a vegetable in American schools part of the problem? Nooooo, that can't be it. it must be a moral issue!" and thats just one example.

The obesity problem in the US is tied directly to our relationship with highly processed (and CHEAP) food. Along with the stranglehold those companies have over state and federal institutions that allow them to directly sell these foods in schools and institutions, and heavily skirt FDA regulations via lobbying.

The US is uniquely bad when we have a ton of chemicals and ingredients in our foods that are banned in most other countries. It is largely a systemic problem and a problem that can easily be solved. Poorer people tend to eat cheap food, cheap processed food isn't well regulated and is directly tied obesity and a whole host of health problems.

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#298

Post by llamaimperative »

whall6 wrote: post #289
llamaimperative wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not being a dick, just utterly unhelpful and non-contributory.

Maybe. Or maybe pointing out the obvious

Pointing out the obvious: the conversation isn't about GP and their own time allocation. It's about the empirically observable fact that we've built a civilization that turns people into lethargic, sedentary, chronically afflicted mush.

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#299

Post by robohydrate »

I've been on tirzepatide (Mounjaro) for 4 months now. I'm down 13% of my body weight. I realized that frequent cannabis consumption interferes with the weight loss, so I've kicked the habit from daily to occasionally on weekends. I've started walking 2-3 miles a day, 2-3 days a week regularly, in addition to eating less and being more motivated to calorie count.

All this to say, this drug has been life changing for me. I spend more time doing things I want to do, depression and anxiety have less of a hold on me now. I feel that this drug has allowed me to be the best version of myself I have been in a long time. The only side effects so far have been positive. I do worry about what I will do once it's time to titrate off the weekly dose and the best I can think of is that the habits I'm forming in the time on the drug I will have the resolve to continue after cessation.

I say this because I have battled depression, anxiety and obesity issues my entire life. I've had many failed attempts at getting back to a healthy, productive and non-obese lifestyle. I don't know what is so different about having the drug help me, but I can tell you that it has been different.

Re: How long til we're all on Ozempic?

#300

Post by rootusrootus »

bozhark wrote: post #292
arcticbull wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Just eat less and exercise more" is trite. If it were that easy, we'd all be in fantastic shape. Studies show it just doesn't work. There was a massive (18,000,000 people) cohort analysis published in 2023 that showed the likelihood of someone losing 5% of their body weight in any given year was 1 in 11 and the likelihood of going from severely obese to normal weight is 1 in 1667. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/…

This is absurd. Caloric intake and outtake is just that.

That is a simplistic description which is superficially true. The body, however, is quite a bit more complicated than that. Especially when you get to that wrinkly pink lump in your skull.
Post reply on HN