631–640 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No free lunch" is a reasonable question to ask when evaluating medication, if it would improve the evolutionary fitness of the majority of people. I think this is behind some of the skepticism. If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them? I would guess t…
The other side of this is related to morals. People learned self-discipline by having to moderate their diet. Replacing that challenge with an injection is another example of a world in which people are not challenged to grow as people, but merely go out and buy something to make themselves feel or look better.
Take Elon Musk, he is clearly overweight. Is your argument that he lacks self-discipline as a person and is as such a complete failure? Of course not, the man is clearly more disciplined and driven than most people. He just eats like crap as he has other priorities.
I am open to you explaining the argument as to why 40% of people being obese so that they have to learn self discipline in just that single area of their life and all of the associated social, health and financial costs is more beneficial to society as a whole than people taking a shot and losing weight and gaining all of the benefits that being obese robs society of.
Society evolves as its technology does. I'm sure its not the case but your argument appears to devolve to "Back in my day we didn't need a shot to be thin like you young kids, we walked up hill both ways to school with our little brother on our back. IN THE SNOW!"
I find it fascinating how much a pretty large group of people just hate semaglutides and seemingly need to believe that it's some kind of Faustian bargain. I'm not talking about the people who are cautious or suspicious, that's more than reasonable, but it's clear that it's not cautious optimism in many.
"No free lunch" is a reasonable question to ask when evaluating medication, if it would improve the evolutionary fitness of the majority of people. I think this is behind some of the skepticism. If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them? I would guess t…
On the natural evolution. I think it's best to think of it as a proces, with optimal state being a limit (e.g. in time, in total population), but especially in a changing environment. So, as it became easier to procure/produce fats or sugars there can be local sub-optimal states. So, in this framework, th "how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1?" question, can be answered with the fact that it's possible that we just haven't adapted yet. If we end up back to previous availability.— e.g. we lose farm land and "starve" again it would end up being the right evolutionary speed, if not, those that naturally produce more, may end up becomign majoritary.
The bottom line is that natural evolution is a long term process that's adapting things to long term changes and "long" here can mean many generations.
In a sense, philsophically, I wonder what prevents our own "changes" to be just a natural evolution of the natural evolution— i.e. a "conscious" evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have so much choice: For the pure fat experience I suggest corticosteroids, lithium or a random antipsychotic. Insulin is also very useful here, but a tad dangerous. If it has to be muscle mass, then anabolic steroids of course are preferable. But beta adrenergic agonists like clenbuterol also seem to have some effect. And there are many more.
Corticosteroids are also pretty damn dangerous
This, like much of the pharmaceutical approach to well-being, is treating symptoms and not the problem. Metabolic dysfunction? Fix the metabolism. Poor understanding of nutrition? Fix the understanding. Lack of emotional or self-control? Fix the discipline. Obesity is largely NOT an acute symptom and does not need an acute solution. If you don't fix the underlying problem you will have weight issues your whole life (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The body is a marvelous machine, but it is far from a perfect or intelligent design. And I think that we can only expect the process of evolution through natural selection to operate on traits that cause differential survival of individuals before reproduction. All sorts of new traits acquired through random mutation and recombination that only affect individuals after typical reproductive years will exist even whi…
Yet women have a longer lifespan despite shorter reproductive years. If in a hunter-gatherer society most people stop reproducing after 40 (not entirely realistic, but bear with me), me being alive and fit at 45 can still improve the survival of my genepool. I can hunt meat and gather plants to make sure my children and grand-children are well-fed and able to produce plenty of offspring, carrying my genes on. I can b…
We know that there is strong selection pressure for things that occur during reproductive years. No one debates this.
How much the sort of scenarios you're discussing impact selection pressure is significantly less clear.
But it's also a moot point for this discussion - we haven't been in a world where people can get this fat so easily and in such large quantities for long enough to make significant impact to evolution even if we assumed that selection pressure works the same in said world - and again, we know it doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people confuse simple with easy. It IS simple to reduce your weight. There are like, two things you need to do. It is, however, VERY hard to actually do those things.
But it's not. What you're referring to, is the basic concept of thermodynamic calorie in/calorie out. Yes, you can "just" reduce food and lose weight if you hit deficit numbers. But if you don't do it correctly, you'll feel like trash, you'll suffer bad cravings, and put yourself in a stressful mental situation for days, possibly putting your job at risk. You have to: - Eat less than what you're already eating - But…
Not true for most people. You need to eat fewer calories, not less food. I counted calories for a few weeks an was very surprised.
I find it fascinating how much a pretty large group of people just hate semaglutides and seemingly need to believe that it's some kind of Faustian bargain. I'm not talking about the people who are cautious or suspicious, that's more than reasonable, but it's clear that it's not cautious optimism in many.
"No free lunch" is a reasonable question to ask when evaluating medication, if it would improve the evolutionary fitness of the majority of people. I think this is behind some of the skepticism. If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them? I would guess t…
We’re designed to consume calories and store those calories indefinitely to meet short term needs, rather than lifelong health.
But we weren’t also designed to consume microplastics, artificial sweeteners, or flavors designed in a laboratory. Yet here we are. And it’s quite probable those things contribute to obesity.
Please stop with these obvious pharma ads, nobody needs to take Ozempic! Change your lifestyle and most importantly: STOP EATING JUNK FOOD
You’re so smart!