Live data from Hacker News

Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

sdu.dk

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone reading this might assume its zero sum to you - as if people on Ozempic have not already been exercising and monitoring caloric intake without the associated weight loss/health results they desire - and have only chosen it because they don't want to try something else. I'm sure you aren't trying to come across as fat shaming, but the reality is of course not zero sum. Diet and exercise doesn't magically work…

Diet alone is 100% guaranteed to cause you to lose weight. It really is as easy as counting calories. It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to gain, or maintain weight, if you cut caloric intake sufficiently.

No one here is stating that physics stops working for fat people. Obviously, your body needs an energy source to function and when you deprive it of that energy source it will go to your energy reserves. There might be some woefully ignorant people that claim otherwise elsewhere, but that's not the position of the person you are referring to.

But you're saying "it is as easy as doing activity x" without concern for the difficulty of that activity. There are a wide variety of reasons some people might get fat, but once you are fat, it is far more difficult to get not-fat than it was to get there in the first place. There are a wide variety of feedback loops within the body, including epigenetic ones, that make it much harder to lose weight and keep it off.

Once upon a time, it was trivial for me to not eat garbage food, or too much of any sort of food. I had more trouble trying to eat enough to be in a large enough caloric surplus to get enough protein in and stay in a large enough caloric surplus to build muscle. I never had "food noise" or anything of that nature. Then life happened, my circumstances changed, and I had less time to worry about food. I spent more time going out with co-workers and friends eating and drinking. Other nights, I was too busy to cook, and ordered in more. My weight went up, and before I really realized it, I had put on significant weight. And I realized that something I had found trivial before, something that had taken zero willpower, that I had never struggled with... was something that was incredibly mentally taxing.

Could I count calories and lose weight? Of course. Could I add exercise back in to my routine? Yep. But it was difficult in a way that I never had understood back when I was fit, in a way that I never would have believed could happen to me. And as soon as I got busy again, or had other things occur in my life that took priority, the mental effort to keep "just counting calories" and push down my food cravings and hunger no longer seemed worth it.

I could exert a huge portion of my willpower on this, struggle with it, remove my capacity to spend more time having care and empathy for others, forcefully deprioritize other things in life... or I could use a GLP-1.

I know which path made sense for me, and it's been a hugely beneficial thing in my life.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#82

I really don't like these medicines that give people who indulge themselves excessively an easy way out. Maybe these side effects are nature's price for not doing the work.

Well, let's not give you any medication for any disease you are afflicted with. It's an easy way out. Get a bacterial infection? Should have been cleaner. Get a virus? Why you expose yourself. Develop cancer? We know there are millions of lifestyle choices that push the needle towards development bit by tiny bit, why didn't you avoid all of those? All of these are nature's price for not doing the work. Why are you taking the easy way out to discuss this on the internet? Why not go talk to someone about it in person. But don't drive, or wear clothing made by others, or live in a home constructed with modern methods using modern materials.

Or... This could be a ridiculously awful take. Convenience or the "easy way out" is one of the biggest drivers of technological advancement in human history. The fact you are able to make this post at all means you have been a beneficiary of the "easy way out" in countless ways. All you're actually doing here is moralizing about fat people.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) Just because it exists doesn't mean it's statistically applicable to a population of people. I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, sustainable and side effect free ways to lose weight exists at a statistically significant level. If you're 100+ lbs overweight and you lose it all without any medical…

> I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, I mean visit Japan if you want to see a large nation manage its populations weight, but the entire reasoning is completely backwards. Statistics doesn't have a will of its own or causal powers, it's a description of aggregate behavior. Change the behavior and you get some new statistics. 100 years ago you didn't have a single statistic showing that obesity w…

> What evidence do you need that making people move more and eat less will make them lose weight, there's no law of nature operating against you.

IDK, any evidence? We've been telling people to move more and eat less for literally decades and it doesn't work to make them lose weight on a broad population level.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#84
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The eye condition: non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION)

Non-arteritic → Not involving arteries [0] Anterior → Front part Ischemic → Low blood flow Optic → Related to the eye Neuropathy → Nerve damage [1] "Non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) refers to loss of blood flow to the optic nerve (which is the cable that connects the eye to the brain). This condition typically causes sudden vision loss in one eye, without any pain." - https://www.brighamandwom…

Thanks, chubbyemu ;)

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#85

I really don't like these medicines that give people who indulge themselves excessively an easy way out. Maybe these side effects are nature's price for not doing the work.

Well, let's not give you any medication for any disease you are afflicted with. It's an easy way out. Get a bacterial infection? Should have been cleaner. Get a virus? Why you expose yourself. Develop cancer? We know there are millions of lifestyle choices that push the needle towards development bit by tiny bit, why didn't you avoid all of those? All of these are nature's price for not doing the work. Why are you ta…

Catching a disease is not the same as willfully and knowingly overeating to the point of obesity. That is a very poor comparison.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a better phrasing would be, "There is no free lunch." If you prefer to take Ozempic rather than monitoring caloric intake and exercising, then there are consequences. But if the consequences are worth it, is up to the individual.

It's true, it isn't a free lunch. You, or your insurer, has to pay for it. It needs to be injected. It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. And so on.

>It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day.

Yeah, good luck with that.

GLP-1 agonists reduce your desire for, and for many people, your ability to consume things like “a pint of ice cream three times a day.” That’s kinda the point.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also important to note that these studies are observational and do not prove causation. While the authors attempted to correct for covariates, it is highly likely that the patients who received semaglutide were generally sicker than those who did not. While further study is necessary and some degree of caution may be warranted, it is still entirely plausible that semaglutide has no causal influence on NAION.

The endlessly repeated truism that "these studies don't prove causation" isn't really saying anything, as the same could be said for every long term human drug study. This line of thinking was the reasoning behind ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco products for decades, because the studies establishing that link were and are observational studies, considering that a controlled experimental study on humans e…

>This line of thinking was the reasoning behind ignoring the link between cancer and tobacco products for decades

I wish people would stop repeating this falsehood.

The mass consumption of tobacco only really started after 1910, with the mechanisation of cigarette manufacturing. There was a multi-decade time lag between this explosion in tobacco use and the long-term sequelae of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The causal link was established beyond any reasonable doubt in the late 1950s, which was really the earliest point at which we had clear data; it took only a few years for all major medical bodies to endorse this as the consensus position and start lobbying for legislative action.

"We didn't know" is a propaganda line rolled out by the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, the fossil fuel industry and others. The lack of action wasn't due to any scientific uncertainty, but naked corruption at the highest level. There was an overwhelmingly clear scientific consensus which was privately accepted as true by these industries, but they paid off politicians to protect their profits.

We genuinely don't know if this is a real risk; NAION is a rare disease, which greatly increases the difficulty of making accurate inferences even from very large amounts of data. We can be extremely confident that the magnitude of risk is vastly smaller than the risks caused by Type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#88
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true, it isn't a free lunch. You, or your insurer, has to pay for it. It needs to be injected. It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. And so on.

>It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. Yeah, good luck with that. GLP-1 agonists reduce your desire for, and for many people, your ability to consume things like “a pint of ice cream three times a day.” That’s kinda the point.

The sarcasm in my reply did not come across it would seem.

"No free lunch" does not in any sense imply that there are no positive-sum decisions to be made.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let's not give you any medication for any disease you are afflicted with. It's an easy way out. Get a bacterial infection? Should have been cleaner. Get a virus? Why you expose yourself. Develop cancer? We know there are millions of lifestyle choices that push the needle towards development bit by tiny bit, why didn't you avoid all of those? All of these are nature's price for not doing the work. Why are you ta…

Catching a disease is not the same as willfully and knowingly overeating to the point of obesity. That is a very poor comparison.

Sod off. Your take on overweight being ”willfully and knowingly overeating” is ignorant and naive beyond recourse.

Re: Ozempic increases risk of debilitating eye condition: studies

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catching a disease is not the same as willfully and knowingly overeating to the point of obesity. That is a very poor comparison.

Sod off. Your take on overweight being ”willfully and knowingly overeating” is ignorant and naive beyond recourse.

There's nothing ignorant about it, you don't get to be obese by accident. Sorry, that's just the truth.
Post reply on HN