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

591–600 of 985 posts

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#591

Post by carlmr »

malfist wrote: post #486
carlmr wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how you calculate or define excess. For one, excess calories aren't 100% stored as fat. We're not that efficient. Additionally the fatter you are the more calories you use at rest. So there's a point where if you consistently eat too much you'll stop gaining weight. The biggest source of error here will be the calories in the garbage bin though. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this is stored in th…

If I throw away 500 calories of food, I'm not eating an excess 500 calories. Let's not engage in equivocation

If you don't read the main part of my reply, why do you even reply with snarky nastiness.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#592

Post by IAmGraydon »

carlmr wrote: post #6

>The share of U.S. households reporting at least one user rose from about 11% in late 2023 to more than 16% by mid-2024. I was wondering how you could get such a high impact overall. But it seems one in 6 households are on GLP-1 drugs in the US. In my friend circle in Germany I don't even know one single person on this stuff. It's insane to me that so many people need these to get off the processed foods killing them…

I got the poison, I got the remedy.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#593

Post by spiderfarmer »

nwienert wrote: post #59
spiderfarmer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in the US for 4 weeks as a tourist, the amount of additional time and effort it takes in the US to eat healthy is mind boggling.

Where did you visit? I don't think I've ever lived in a city where it wasn't trivially easy to find healthy food in abundance.

Every day another city or village in 4 different states. I won't go into everything I saw or noticed while staying there. HN doesn't like criticism of the US.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#594

Post by vaadu »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #167

I wonder how much the 2026 SNAP food stamp item rule changes will move this needle further, with several states using new federal waivers to restrict "junk food" items like soda, candy, energy drinks, or prepared desserts?

I would bet big bucks that the people not on SNAP are healthier than those on it.

SNAP is supposed to be about nutrition.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#595

Post by margalabargala »

whatshisface wrote: post #547
margalabargala wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The potential for overeating chronically has not been possible for most people, in most societies, throughout most of human history. Our current caloric abundance being available to literally everyone in Western society is something unique to the past century.

If you eat 1% fewer calories than you burn every day you will die. You will also die if you eat 1% more calories than you burn every day. Is it possible, really, to suggest that the availability of calories was 100% of the daily requirement of our ancestors, and not 99%, or 101%? That is a level of accident that exceeds belief. It is incredible to think this precise balance could be maintained by anything other than…

You will also die if you eat precisely the amount of calories you burn every day.

There exists something called a "feedback loop", something common in biology. You would probably find it interesting, you should look it up.

Basically, it means that if you try to chronically eat, say, 1% more calories than are burned, your body will try to burn more calories to compensate.

I'm not sure I grasp the rest of your comment, could you try again to explain? The wheat farm your ancestors worked did not provide the excess of cheap calories available to the present day American.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#596

Post by wiredpancake »

gpt5 wrote: post #361
jdhdjdjd333 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your comment completely doesn't understand how hard it can be to be on a sustained diet. The funny thing is that ever since starting to take GLP-1, I've kind of gain empathy to the "just stop eating so much" crowd. When you are on GLP-1, you lose a lot of the feeling towards food, so it's easier to understand how a person who has never had the same level of urges and difficulty would feel. FWIW, there is no research…

[dead]

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#597

Post by zahlman »

jjk166 wrote: post #589
zahlman wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how else to understand "When comparing things like bread and butter, the ultra processed versions are much cheaper.", other than as a claim that ultra-processed versions of things like bread and butter are much cheaper than non-ultra-processed versions of them.

How much does a loaf of white bread cost? How much does a load of whole grain cost? Whatever it is you are trying to argue in your comment, it has nothing to do with the cost comparison I am making.

A loaf of white bread here costs a minimum of $1.99 (all prices CAD) and contains by my reckoning a bit over 400 grams of wheat. So nearly $5 per kilogram.

A kilogram of rolled oats can be easily found for about $3; white rice around $1.50 if you shop around; pasta from $1.33 to $2.22 depending (usually on the higher end of that); white flour $1 (in large bags).

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#598

Post by siliconc0w »

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.

I have done experiments like water fasting for 2+ weeks while ruck sacking up one of the steepest hills in Los Angeles every morning. I have done multi-day solo hikes in pretty miserable weather. I consider my self control pretty strong, but unless I am extremely vigilant and accept a very poor quality of life (i.e. strictly the same meals day after day), I slowly gain weight.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#600

Post by [deleted] »

anon7000 wrote: post #553
subpixel wrote: post #551

> It's insane to me that so many people need these to get off the processed foods killing them in the US The American diet is insane, full stop. However, I've just begun a GLP-1 regimen to address a willpower problem, not a nutritional problem. I'm not quite young anymore and have given lots of other approaches a shot over the years, but have persistently failed to achieve a weight that is not a threat to my health.…

And crucially, many of those bad foods can be pretty addictive. They’re quite literally engineered so that you want to eat a lot of them and buy more. So it’s not surprising many people struggle to change that habit when the food ecosystem is working against you. Junk food both tastes better and is easier to eat than home-cooking a very healthy meal. You’re not exactly set up for success here.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN