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

611–620 of 985 posts

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#611

Post by machomaster »

Aurornis wrote: post #190
jhanschoo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can buy pre-chopped Cole slaw, diced peppers / onions, etc. These accessible food options come with a premium that I strongly suspect put them out of what a median income household can sustainably afford.

> These accessible food options come with a premium that I strongly suspect put them out of what a median income household can sustainably afford. No they don’t. Even my local Walmart has cheap vegetable selections included pre cut versions. You know what is expensive, though? Meat. There’s still plenty of meat consumption in the median household. It’s not a price issue.

Meat is really not that expensive compared to even simple vegetables.

Most simple salads are actually more expensive than chicken (boneless thighs, ground meat) per kg!

If you compare the price per kcal, as one really should, the difference becomes absurd.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#612

Post by WheatMillington »

jacobthesnakob wrote: post #269
giuliomagnifico wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After discontinuation of Ozempic, people start to gain the weight again (and buy again more food), that’s why the spending changes again.

Which is no surprise to anybody with common sense, the data for discontinuing GLP-1s show exactly the intuitive outcome. Zero diet change, zero habit change for the vast majority of users. Weight loss is accomplished via biochemical tricks to eat less volume of calorie dense junk food, rather than diet substitution. When the artificial appetite suppression ends, volume of the same food increases again leading to weig…

Weight gain/loss is not a matter of motivation and discipline.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#613

Post by hsuduebc2 »

firecall wrote: post #602
ChadNauseam wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, it's hard to think of a better example of a correlational study measuring something that would obviously be confounded by the thing being studied. Don't forget that most GLP-1 users are obese and many will continue to be after treatment (as it only causes a reduction in 10%-20% of body weight). And they're rich. So the headline is "rich obese people spend more in restaurants than average". No shade on people tak…

Do we know what the reason is for the limits of around 10-20%?

As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories to run. That “needed amount” keeps dropping with your size, until it eventually equals what you’re eating on the medication. At that point you’re no longer in a deficit, so weight loss slows or stops.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#614

Post by rootusrootus »

firecall wrote: post #602
ChadNauseam wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, it's hard to think of a better example of a correlational study measuring something that would obviously be confounded by the thing being studied. Don't forget that most GLP-1 users are obese and many will continue to be after treatment (as it only causes a reduction in 10%-20% of body weight). And they're rich. So the headline is "rich obese people spend more in restaurants than average". No shade on people tak…

Do we know what the reason is for the limits of around 10-20%?

I don't know that there's a consensus on what the limit really is. Semaglutide is good for about 15%, tirzepatide about 20%, and retatrutide about 25%. Some people don't get that much, some people get a lot more. Personally, tirzepatide got me just over 35%. I never got anywhere near max dose, either, I am what is colloquially referred to as a super responder.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#615

Post by t-3 »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #549
bluedino wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to use those excuses, don't forget to add that economically disadvantage folks can't buy in bulk because they don't have enough money, and live in food deserts where people can't buy in bulk, and they don't have anywhere to store those items.

1 box of snack cakes still has better shelf life than 1 bag of apples.

A pound of dry rice or beans keeps just as well, provides more food, and is cheaper unless you're buying basmati.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#616

Post by vorpalhex »

zahlman wrote: post #494
SkyPuncher wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed foods are much cheaper per calorie than "healthy" options. GLP-1 helped me kick my cravings for junk food, but that just meant I was eating more of the "expensive" stuff. Instead of $0.50 worth of Doritos as a snack, I'm eating $1.50 worth of Greek yogurt and $1.50 worth of fruit.

> Processed foods are much cheaper per calorie than "healthy" options. > Instead of $0.50 worth of Doritos as a snack, I'm eating $1.50 worth of Greek yogurt and $1.50 worth of fruit. I won't bother with currency conversion because we're comparing ratios. 50 cents here gets a third of a 200g bag of generic brand potato chips, so 360 calories. Doritos are probably at least twice that expensive but whatever. (The gener…

And this is the issue with these "healthy"/"processed" discussions.

If you live off bananas and rice, you are not going to be healthy. You can get just as fat off plantains as you can doritos.

Peanut butter (which is at least partially processed) can be a healthy part of your diet. It can also absolutely wreck it.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#617

Post by doubleunplussed »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #613
firecall wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know what the reason is for the limits of around 10-20%?

As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories to run. That “needed amount” keeps dropping with your size, until it eventually equals what you’re eating on the medication. At that point you’re no longer in a deficit, so weight loss slows or stops.

That is true but requires some extra assumptions to explain why people don't keep losing weight - because the strongest influence on most people's appetite in the short run is how much of a deficit or surplus they're currently in. Thus as TDEE drops, so does hunger.

In "setpoint theory" there's an additional hunger drive based on whether you are below or above a given level of adiposity - your "setpoint". This is often given as an explanation for why people can't keep weight off, and is the sort of thing you'd need to posit to explain why people on GLP-1 inhibitors can't as easily get to lower levels of adiposity.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#618

Post by t-3 »

francisofascii wrote: post #14

> a handful of categories showed increases. Yogurt rose the most, followed by fresh fruit, nutrition bars and meat snacks. Interesting. Wonder what it is about yogurt and ozempic users. Probiotics?

It's probably just because yogurt is commonly considered to be a "healthy" food, but given Ozempic's bone-density effects maybe there could be cravings for calcium-rich foods?

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#619

Post by t-3 »

cookiengineer wrote: post #230
notdang wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... Here are some first steps: Earlier this year, Conagra started labeling some of its Healthy Choice frozen meals with high protein and fiber as "GLP-1 friendly." A spokesperson said those meals are selling faster than rival products making similar claims on their packaging. The company plans to introduce new Healthy Choice recipes with the same labeling in…

How do citizens of the US tolerate this? I'm baffled how messed up the food industry in the US has gotten over the last decades. When I was in the US I remember ordering pancakes in the morning. Those pancakes for like 10 bucks lasted for the whole week because I couldn't stuff so much in my stomach. I also don't understand why everything, literally everything, is fried in oil. Good luck trying to get an actual healt…

> You have really great vegetables and fruits there because of having enough sun to grow them locally, yet it seems like nobody wants to eat them.

Most of the fruit and vegetables in the supermarket aren't grown locally, those are usually imported (and rarely from other US states, most from South America). Farmers markets have the local stuff.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#620

Post by pixl97 »

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…

In reality there were times of excess and times of shortages far more often in past times. In times where there were plenty of items that didn't last you over consumed. By late winter you were getting lean.

>If it was off by 1% consistently, everyone would have died...

You do realize that starvation was a massive killer in the past. Everyone didn't die, but the young, the old, and the weak sure did.

Post reply on HN