731–740 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? Drug reps have scorecards for the doctors they call on and throw perks at the top performers or influencers. It also depends on the speciality - dermatologists working for price equity mills are almost evaluated like salespeople. Source: girlfriend is a rep.
Yeah and what are those perks? Pens, t-shirts, backpacks, posters for patient rooms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really applicable in humans. Effect is smaller than in mice, and requires some pretty drastic restrictions that aren't exactly pleasant. The thing with ozempic is that is seems to do several things, most (all?) of them good for us in different ways. We probably just lucked out. It's not the only case - plenty of drugs do incredibly good things with only reasonable side effects. Antibiotics. Ibuprofen. Aspirin. Vi…
Statins negatively affect mitochondria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but good quality food is expensive (in the US -- many other parts of the world have their quality food cheaper but I digress Let's digress. I read this frequently in various forms on this forum, and it's always "just so" justification. My own heuristic thought is that "low quality" food (high energy, long shelf-life processed foods) is very cheap because it is produced at scale and can be stored, while "high qualit…
> Expensive food is expensive, but I would bet quality food is cheaper here than anywhere else. Having lived in a few other countries with less industrialized distribution networks, no, this claim is dramatically incorrect. Fruits, vegetables, staples like rice, and basic forms of protein (fish, insects and sea critters, some chicken) are much, much cheaper relative to processed foods. Larger protein sources like bee…
This is specifically a study on people with HIV-associated lipohypertrophy, which is associated with accelerated aging. Not clear what this would mean for people generally.
People on ozempic certainly look more like the crypt keeper than a younger version of themselves. You lose all that buccal fat that defines your young adult face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visit Turkey for a couple weeks. Rules are the same, but behavior is the opposite. Weekly dose of 1mg is sold over the counter for around 150$.
And it's thanks to that kind of dishonorable practice that $NVO has lost 64% of its value over the last year. This is how the world rewards the makers of the most successful and helpful drug in history.
Other "newcomers" in the GLP-1 space are also showing more promise than what Novo has in the pipeline. Boehringer Ingelheim has Survodutide in the pipeline as well, along with plenty of others.
They're the least interesting game in town when it comes to the incretin mimetics at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The science is clear that people who do make changes and achieve initial results are still overwhelmingly likely to fail at maintaining the results . Lots of people successfully make changes and lose weight, but exceedingly few manage to keep it low over time.
you are misunderstanding my point. There is a selection bias. Those with the reading comprehension and scientific aptitude to make a statement like "the science is clear" with accuracy and confidence is already exceedingly rare. My assertion is that the success of long term weight changes is not independent from that variable.
There's no evidence to suggest that reading comprehension or scientific aptitude has any link whatsoever to ability to maintain the willpower to stick to a diet. It seems distinctly non-obvious to think it would matter.
And all the evidence is that diets works soo poorly that the effect would need to be astronomical for it to counter-act just how unlikely they are to effect lasting change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Expensive food is expensive, but I would bet quality food is cheaper here than anywhere else. Having lived in a few other countries with less industrialized distribution networks, no, this claim is dramatically incorrect. Fruits, vegetables, staples like rice, and basic forms of protein (fish, insects and sea critters, some chicken) are much, much cheaper relative to processed foods. Larger protein sources like bee…
I'm not arguing whether fresh food tastes better or is healthier. What I want to see is evidence that "quality" food is (relatively) more expensive in the United States than it is anywhere else in the world. And then maybe some evidence that people buy junk food because "healthy food" is too expensive (my hungry teenager looks in the pantry and the refrigerator and says, "all we have is ingredients").
Neither one of us pursued this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not just weight loss, but the people I know on GLP-1's have also significantly cut back on alcohol. I think there are ongoing trials around GLP-1's and general addiction.
I've heard similar for gambling, and as one of the sister comments said, things like video games. I'm so curious to understand _why_ that effect is there, but I've heard this so many times now that I do believe that it exists in some capacity. Such an interesting world we're opening up here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is/was made of a poison from an animal. Caffeine is an insecticide.
Right, and it's also not something naturally in the human body. But sugar is also an insecticide when you cook it into a jam. It doesn't really make me comfortable with giant lizard poison
And the gila monsters have their own circulating serum levels of exenedin-4. It's produced in their salivary glands - it's a component in their venom, yes, but they also ingest it themselves, particularly when eating.
But these are fundamentally analogs to our own hormones that have been tweaked to increase desirable properties. It's not like we isolated some random compound that our body has never had to deal with before. (Not that I think that that would necessarily be an indicator we shouldn't use it, either. I don't see why any of this is a strong argument to you, even if your understanding was correct.)