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

GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

wildfirelabs.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 553 posts

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#71

Post by MostlyStable »

willis936 wrote: post #59
smallmancontrov wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it only appropriate for people with heart disease / mobility issues but not for someone who is merely overweight? This feels like finger-wagging for the sake of finger-wagging.

It isn't. 20% body fat is 6% below average. That isn't "merely overweight", it's likely underweight. No, I don't think underweight people should take appetite suppressants and I don't think that qualifies as a hot take. I think anyone who is medically overweight (which is a very modest BMI qualifier for anyone with any amount of muscle) should have the choice. Many US medical systems and insurers agree, which is a go…

>it's likely underweight.

The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be which is just...wild to me.

If we assume commenter is male (a statistical likelihood), then 20% is the high end of normal, and could very safely be halved. In the less likely case that they are female, then it is right in the middle of the normal range, and could safely be reduced by 5-10% at least.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#72

Post by luckylion »

thundergolfer wrote: post #31
Marsymars wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my entire office, there's one overweight person that I know. Out of thousands of employees. That seems incompatible with the numbers that show something like 3/4 of the US population being overweight. (And yeah, BMI isn't great, but it works pretty well with an aggregate population of sedentary individuals, which the population at large is.)

The population of a specific Google office could be two std deviations from the mean. My office area, SoHo NYC, has a dramatically lower obesity rate than the USA average. Maybe 10-20% of the population is overweight, let alone obese, and it’s mostly the service workers.

But 1 of 1000s? That sounds like it's made up, or a very, very, very fitness-focused company.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#73

Post by KaiserPro »

I would point out that it isn't unforeseen, given that genz don't drink, go out or do drugs to anywhere near the extent that millennials did at the same age. (https://www.statista.com/chart/30783/alcohol-consumption-by-...)

I would also gently point out the evidence for tempering alcohol only seems to be evident with people who have high BMI https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/mental-heal...

So yes, its worth thinking about how our economy is organised.

But the thing that is going to kneecap the US economy in the short terms are one of the following:

o Tariffs

o Cutting government spending (especially welfare)

o a steep rise in unemployment caused by government firing of civil servants

o fucking with the structure of the monetary system

o AI eliminating whole classes of jobs (taxi driving, phone centers, clerical work, etc etc)

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#74

Post by cj »

devmor wrote: post #34
cj wrote: post #19

I started Tirzepatide 3-4 weeks ago. (Mostly as an experiment to understand the hype around GLP's... I don't have diabetes and only very slightly overweight at 20% body fat). Even at the lowest 2.5mg starter dose which you're only allowed to stay on for 1 month: - Extreme appetite suppression to the point where I've started calorie counting specifically to make sure that I'm eating enough. It's incredibly easy to for…

> Extreme appetite suppression to the point where I've started calorie counting specifically to make sure that I'm eating enough. It's incredibly easy to forget to eat. This is the largest of several reasons I hesitate to try it for myself. I am a very big guy (I would be about 184lbs if I had 0% bodyfat at my current musculature level). From the experiences I hear, I would not only struggle to have enough energy to…

I’ve been hyper aware of the muscle loss caveats and I think it’s the most important thing to know when starting the drug.

You really need to prioritize protein intake and make sure your calorie deficit isn’t extreme.

Losing too much weight too quickly, with or without the help of a drug, can be very unhealthy.

I drink 4 protein shakes a day (160g total) in addition to regular food. If it weren’t for the protein shakes I definitely would be protein deficient.

You’re 100% spot on with decreased energy at the gym. I’ve had to pull back 4x weekly cardio to 1-2x weekly. Then again, anyone who’s in a calorie deficit has lower energy. It’s not a unique phenomenon of the drug, just a side effect of weight loss.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#75

Post by DuckConference »

willis936 wrote: post #59
smallmancontrov wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it only appropriate for people with heart disease / mobility issues but not for someone who is merely overweight? This feels like finger-wagging for the sake of finger-wagging.

It isn't. 20% body fat is 6% below average. That isn't "merely overweight", it's likely underweight. No, I don't think underweight people should take appetite suppressants and I don't think that qualifies as a hot take. I think anyone who is medically overweight (which is a very modest BMI qualifier for anyone with any amount of muscle) should have the choice. Many US medical systems and insurers agree, which is a go…

What are you smoking? 20% is a perfectly healthy bodyfat number and (for a man) anything down to 15% or so is fine. Sub 10% is when you pretty much need a crazy bodybuilder lifestyle to maintain it. And on the other side, 25% is around the lien where you start facing some minor health risks from excess body fat.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#76

Post by msabalau »

cm2187 wrote: post #10
codr7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more worried about longer term side effects. This sounds a lot like numbing "bad" feelings to me; there's no way to selectively numb, it's all or nothing. Impulsivity isn't all bad.

As opposed to the good long term effects of being obese?

As it happens, in the elderly, a BMI at the lower range of "obesity" is better than having higher or lower weight.

Of course, with the shortage of geriatricians, most seniors are unlikely to find this out.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#77

Post by cj »

Judgmentality wrote: post #50
cj wrote: post #19

I started Tirzepatide 3-4 weeks ago. (Mostly as an experiment to understand the hype around GLP's... I don't have diabetes and only very slightly overweight at 20% body fat). Even at the lowest 2.5mg starter dose which you're only allowed to stay on for 1 month: - Extreme appetite suppression to the point where I've started calorie counting specifically to make sure that I'm eating enough. It's incredibly easy to for…

[flagged]

You can get wegovy generic for $299/mo and Zepbound generic for $399/mo currently through telemedicine via compounding pharmacies, without insurance.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#78

Post by netsharc »

GZGavinZhao wrote: post #70

I would feel like an absolute failure if I need medicine to help create willpower. EDIT: under the assumption of an average person who is not under any medical condition that may result in lack of willpower

Wasn't there an ADHD drug that was popular for hyper-productivity, in the years where being productive was all the hype?

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#79

Post by fullstackwife »

agnishom wrote: post #33

The author is assuming that everyone will proactively start taking this drug. But I don't understand why? If Jerry is not obese, why would Jerry randomly start taking an anti-obesity drug?

The same mechanism: Jerry is not hungry, yet Jerry will eat another slice of pizza.

Re: GLP-1 drugs: An economic disruptor? (2024)

#80

Post by cm2187 »

msabalau wrote: post #76
cm2187 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to the good long term effects of being obese?

As it happens, in the elderly, a BMI at the lower range of "obesity" is better than having higher or lower weight. Of course, with the shortage of geriatricians, most seniors are unlikely to find this out.

Breaking news, being obese is good for your health. And wait to learn about smoking!
Post reply on HN