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

Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 985 posts

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#341

Post by s1artibartfast »

mschwaig wrote: post #86
u_sama wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For artificial problems, artificial solutions. I think the state of food in the US is really bad, and one cannot compare such products to the superior EU food quality standards and eating habits (and city designs) which render the incentives really perverse

A consequence of universal healthcare that people don't talk about much is that it turns unhealthy citizens from an individual cost into more of a collective one. So it makes sense that countries with universal healthcare regulate in favor of their citizens as opposed to their food industry, because they're paying for the consequences more directly.

Nonsense. This is essentially a bottom-up process, not the result of government regulation.

It has to do with culture and wealth. Europe is getting fatter and richer.

This is like thinking medieval peasants or sub-saharan Africa are skinnier because of their robust paternalistic governments

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#342

Post by mullingitover »

lm28469 wrote: post #156
brianpbeau wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just processed foods, there is also a genetic struggle as well. Looking at my family living in the US and in the EU, being overweight is a thing for a large portion of us. Even in my grandparents generation of family had issues as well, and they were all blue collar manual workers that lived before processed foods. This is not to say you are wrong. The food supply in the US is not healthy. The bad news is th…

> there is also a genetic struggle as well. Weird that it virtually did not exist pre ww2 and that it now affects 75%+ of your population

Not remotely weird: people were poorer and food was more scarce across the board pre-WWII.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#343

Post by [deleted] »

blell wrote: post #105
Raed667 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in europe there is a social stigma around GLP-1 drugs, a lot of people considered it cheating and lazy, so a lot of people don't dare talk about their usage

I read this online, I don't know where it was, so I can't give a source, it probably was on twitter: "People really want these things - exercise, weight - to be important moral objectives for others, when they're not that important in the grand scheme of things. Now you'll just have to find another easy visual marker for ranking people by moral superiority."

[deleted]

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#344

Post by c0nducktr »

vovavili wrote: post #225
TaupeRanger wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lazy" is a pejorative term, which makes your comment sound denigrating to users of GLP-1s. If that is your intent, then your issue with people using medicine to help them avoid diabetes and heart disease is that....it's too easy?

There is no way approximately one-sixth of a population are taking GLP-1 strictly for legitimate health issues.

Obesity is a legitimate health issue.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#345

Post by okrad »

jdhdjdjd333 wrote: post #325
siliconc0w wrote: post #318

This is why if we can get them down to ~$50 I think they are clearly +ROI just on the individual level. I snack, drink less, and feel like eating out significantly less. Or when I do those things, I eat the take-out meal over multiple-meals. 1-2 less takeaway meals and a svelter grocery bill due to the less booze or snacks probably is at least $50 if not more.

Something feels extremely dystopian about this statement that I cannot quite put my finger on. I hate to say it, but I do not think taking meds to curb snacking sounds healthy. Just learn some self control.

Easier said than done.

Snacks could also be healthier. The bread we are sold could be less like pound cake. Easier said than done.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#346

Post by kube-system »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #292
jasongill wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cash-payer (no insurance) price of GLP-1's has fallen by about 70% since I started on them 18 months ago, from around $1100/mo to $350/mo, for brand-name non-compounded (Ozempic, Zepbound, etc). Many people also stretch that 1 month supply to last longer, as well (eg "click counting"). Not to say that it's cheap, but they are no longer the high-priced drugs only for the glitterati that you may be thinking.

n=1, I pay $300/month for 2.5mg of Zepbound (tirzepatide) for cash pay direct via http://lilly.com/ , shipped to my door. (no affiliation, I just like the drug)

LillyDirect is $400-450 for standard doses though. 2.5mg is just a starter and most people should be off of that dose pretty soon after they start.

FWIW tirzepatide is the more expensive of the GLP1s right now.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#347

Post by moi2388 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #321
stewarts wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how this math checks out. 1lb of fat is roughly 3500 calories. Given 500 calories a day of excess, that would lead to 1lb of fat gain per week. 52 pound average gain per year?

This hits on something that seems to get lost in most of these "obese people are lazy fat slobs" circle jerks. A typical American gains 1 or 2 pounds per year as they age. This is not a candy problem, or a binge eating problem, this is way more subtle than that.

More subtle as in still not a healthy diet with exercise?

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#348

Post by cpursley »

bluGill wrote: post #206
stinkbeetle wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cause and effect is backward. The locations indicate where people are buying it. And cheap doesn't really add up either because if somebody wants the cheapest possible calories they would be buying rice, flour/pasta, potato... I don't know why the problem is shied away from. It is because people are addicted to fast food and to their sedentary lifestyles. It's not the price or availability of good food, not the first…

Cooking good food takes time. I can slap some pre-made burgers in a pan, throw some buns in a toaster and have a "meal" in 10 minutes. I can stop by fast food on the way and have the same meal (at only slightly more cost) in 5 minutes. I typically spend more than an hour in the kitchen cooking every day, and then there is half an hour clean up after my family is done eating. I eat much better and healthier food, but…

Or you slap the burgers in a pan and serve it with some broccoli, and sliced fresh red peppers or other other quick healthy sides and have a balanced meal. The bun, fries and soda are the unhealthy part of a burger, anyways (assuming it's good quality meat).

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#349

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

jdhdjdjd333 wrote: post #325
siliconc0w wrote: post #318

This is why if we can get them down to ~$50 I think they are clearly +ROI just on the individual level. I snack, drink less, and feel like eating out significantly less. Or when I do those things, I eat the take-out meal over multiple-meals. 1-2 less takeaway meals and a svelter grocery bill due to the less booze or snacks probably is at least $50 if not more.

Something feels extremely dystopian about this statement that I cannot quite put my finger on. I hate to say it, but I do not think taking meds to curb snacking sounds healthy. Just learn some self control.

Self control is only effective for some people, so for others, meds can be the best option. We have plenty of natural selection that makes us crave calorific foods and often that craving will override our decision making. (Disclaimer - I'm not on weight management drugs nor intend to be)

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#350

Post by darkwater »

bluGill wrote: post #227
yunwal wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must’ve missed when peanuts became a bad dietary choice. What’s the evidence for this?

Depends on what your entire diet is. If you are eating only peanuts - or anything else - that is bad. If you eat a handful of peanuts once in a while that is fine. Even a cookie every few weeks is fine, but 6 cookies a day every day would be bad. Someplace in between is generally a good place to be. I'm assuming of course that you are "normal". If you are allergic to peanuts they are of course worse than a cookie. If…

But GP literally said

> (like a handful of peanuts or a single large cookie).

Post reply on HN