I’m currently taking one of these drugs and it has been no less than a miracle in my life. I became obese when I was around 5, topping out around a 34 BMI. When I was 20 I lost a substantial amount of weight the old fashioned way (diet and exercise), and within 8 months I was BMI 23. Losing weight was extremely challenging and socially isolating.
7 years later, I had a bad ankle injury and regained weight to about 29 BMI. This time I lost weight by doing an “eat every other day” diet. This was also extremely challenging, but easier than just counting calories and working out. After Covid and a lack of exercise I was back to BMI 30. I started taking tirzeparide this summer and have gone from BMI 31 to BMI 26 and still dropping. This is by far the easiest way to lose weight. The side effects for the first 3 months are quite bad, and include off and on strong nausea, extreme fatigue, brain fog, and constipation. I was eating <1k calories per day for a long time and feeling full. I expect to be on this drug long term. My blood work shows extreme improvements in cholesterol, BP, and other key health indicators. I believe that everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs for the longevity effects. They changed they induce in diet reduce the oxidative stress on the human body, even if the person is already thin.
I'm also on one of these drugs (Tirzepatide) and have been for a few months. The first time I remember knowing I was fat was when a babysitter made fun of me for it at age 6. I've been fat ever since and I'm in my late 30s now.
I've lost significant amounts of weight (60+ pounds) three times in my adult life, through simple calorie restriction (intermittent fasting, including before I'd ever heard the term). Every time, I've gained the weight back. At the beginning of 2022, I was the heaviest I've ever been.
I've accomplished very hard things in my life, including those that take sustained effort. Sufficient willpower isn't a problem for me in general. I honestly only ever hear "it's easy, just eat less and move more" from people that have never actually been fat. "I did it and I lost 15 pounds, no big deal!" and the like. 15 pounds is easy for me to temporarily lose too. I've done it enough times I should know ;)
I've heard people say that the solution is to eat (healthy food) when you're hungry, and stop when you're full. The thing is, I'm never full. I can eat until I physically can't eat anymore (not something I do regularly, of course), and as soon as my stomach has emptied a bit, I feel fairly hungry again. "Eat until you feel full" is literally a human experience I had never really had.
On this drug, I finally know what people are talking about. I still like food, and I still get hungry. But it doesn't dominate my thoughts. I eat, and don't feel like eating again for hours. I eat something that I'd normally easily eat all of like a big burrito or whatever, and I feel quite full halfway through with no desire to finish. I'm steadily losing weight, with none of the usual preoccupation with hunger, ascetic adherence to a strict calorie plan, etc. But above all, I feel like I must be experiencing what most thin people experience all the time. I'll be perfectly happy to take the drug for the rest of my life, though I do hope affordability improves.
As for side effects: I've had some heartburn, but none of the other commonly reported side effects.
> I've heard people say that the solution is to eat (healthy food) when you're hungry, and stop when you're full. The thing is, I'm never full. I can eat until I physically can't eat anymore (not something I do regularly, of course), and as soon as my stomach has emptied a bit, I feel fairly hungry again. "Eat until you feel full" is literally a human experience I had never really had.
I had this exact same experience when I was prescribed a drug that, as a side effect, blocked receptors in parts of the brain responsible for signalling satiety from food.
I went from having trouble eating enough food to maintain a healthy weight, and just not being hungry, to suddenly being unable to feel full at all. It was like I always had room for more, no matter how much I ate. And I was constantly hungry, felt like I was starving 24/7 and would ruminate about food so much that it impacted my ability to sleep or concentrate. My brain was obsessed with preventing me from "starving" and it ultimately dissolved the illusion of willpower that I thought I had.
No longer take that drug, but it was an eye opening experience. I didn't know that was a thing people could experience, as someone who was always skinny. It really drove home that we are products of our biology and made me more empathetic with those who struggle with food.
I know what you mean. My doctor prescribed Naltrexone. The first day I took it I ate half my dinner and felt full for the first time in my life. As a middle-aged man I had never had that feeling before. Previously I assumed what people meant by feeling full is that you felt like you literally can't eat anymore.
Unfortunately that stopped working for me after a few months. Hopefully this one will work better.
If that doesn't work out, I think they make a combination drug of naltrexone/bupropion if the naltrexone worked for you originally. The latter drug activates parts of the brain that are responsible for emesis and it works well with the reward blocking effects of naltrexone.
Bupropion also helps increase dopamine and norepinephrine levels within the synaptic cleft. It was somewhat helpful for me when I wanted to reduce smoking. I was able to go from losing my mind if I went 90 minutes without a smoke to losing my mind after 3-4 hours without a smoke. I've heard anecdotal evidence from people I know that it helped with weight loss.
Personally, I can say that while Bupropion didn't help me lose weight that it did at least help me stop gaining weight. I've never taken it with naltrexone though. In fact, I'm long-term opiod agonist therapy for chronic pain developed in my early 20s. This actually has more or less the opposite effect of opiod antagonists such as naltrexone. They've definitely had a negative effect on my ability to lose or maintain my weight, although I seem to have achieved some kind of balance where my body plateaus after a certain weight.
> The thing is, I'm never full. I can eat until I physically can't eat anymore (not something I do regularly, of course), and as soon as my stomach has emptied a bit, I feel fairly hungry again. "Eat until you feel full" is literally a human experience I had never really had.
I feel exactly the way you do, and yes, I was fat, lost it in one go and never gained it back. I try to keep my BMI around 18, never went over 20 since losing weight. It's been around 15 years now. I still have the exact same unlimited appetite I have always had. If you put food I like in front of me, I'm going to eat it.
I don't do anything special. I eat the same foods I always have, just less of them. Got really good at counting and never get more food than I need. The trick is to not put yourself in a situation where you have to stop eating in the first place. It's hard to just stop eating something you want to eat. Not that hard to stop yourself from going to the store again or ordering more (especially when other people are around).
I feel like most people never get serious enough about counting, try to eat stuff they don't enjoy, waste effort on exercise or let other people interfere.
> Not that hard to stop yourself from going to the store again or ordering more
Well, actually...
I'm fat. Like BMI 40 fat. Most of my life I have been fat. I was laughed at in school for it, as far back as I can remember. It probably wasn't all that bad when I think back. Certainly not as bad as now. But I was the fat kid in class, and I felt like the fat kid.
Anyway, I have lost a lot of it at a few points. Once by going to a place with more disease than I could handle. Months of intermittent diarrhea helps apparently. And once I reduced intake to about 1200 kcal per day for a year, combined with walking around for 5 hours everyday. I got to BMI 26 or something. Not very obese, but still overweight. It felt amazing to be able to do a lot of things, but it also took a LOT of time and effort.
But then I got a job, and kids. And I started to backslide. Just an hour per day walking during my commute, instead of 5 during the day... And oh, that pastry looks gooood. Slowly at first, with intermittent periods of faster backsliding because life required a bit more from me.
I got it back faster than I lost it.
I have re-lost it a few times after that. Each time the losses are a bit less, and the peaks get a bit higher. I always gain it back faster than I lose it. And annoyingly, initially, gaining it back feels way better than losing ever does. Like finally laying down after a day of strenuous work. Or like the first breaths of fresh air after being cooked up in stale air for a while.
During my losing periods the things you describe help. Keep the food away, and you don't have to expend effort to not eat it. I even enjoy the healthy stuff.
But that's not how it is during my gaining periods, oh no. I get bored with the good food, and start craving the bad. I go to the shops to buy stuff. A small packet of candy at first, or a pastry. But that spirals out of control quickly. Soon I start scheming:
* How can I get the food without my family noticing?
* If I go to multiple shops I can buy twice as much without looking like a greedy fuck.
* Oh, and I won't be able to go tomorrow, so I should make sure I have supplies for the day.
* And eating only candy makes me sick, so I should also buy crisps so I can alternate and keep eating.
I'm in gaining mode now. I ate a box of Pringles, a box of cookies, and a box of candy, just today. In addition to the regular meals with my family. I'm here. I see myself doing this, but I can't seem to stop. Until it runs its course. After a few months or a year or two, I can usually cycle back into a losing mode for a few months.
A doctor might help, but I'm not going. The medical state of the art of dealing with obesity seems to be "just don't". A consult seems pointless and humiliating.
I've learned to take and make fat jokes, and other than that to not think too much about this. My BMI will probably keep oscillating higher and higher, and I guess that means I'll get some obesity disease at some point. Maybe that'll stop it, but I'm not confident it will.
I guess we all have our issues, and this seems to be mine. C'est la vie.
> And eating only candy makes me sick, so I should also buy crisps so I can alternate and keep eating.
This one hit hard. If you swapped "crisps" and "candy" for "MDMA" and "ketamine", people would tell you to go to rehab.
No judgment here, but a lot of your behaviour sounds like addiction underpinned by a coping mechanism. If you replaced <food> with alcohol or drugs people would point out how your relationship with the substance is pathological.
IMO food is the most cruel of addictions as it is fuelled by our most primal of instincts to survive, it is also why I think Big Sugar is the most sinister of institutions...
The problem with food is that you can't cut it completely like drugs or cigarettes, rehab schemes are not going to work because the temptation and use is always there, multiple times a day.
No, but maladaptive coping (eg addictions, including eating your emotions) can be replaced with something healthier. It's also possible they've been emotionally neglected or abused (trauma always makes these things much more messier to address without addressing it first) and that's how maladaptive coping develops (or maybe they never learned them from parents for another reason, or maybe they picked up on a parents unhealthy coping style).
Not even remotely a doctor, so take all this with a grain of salt if you're in a similar spot. Mostly based on my own life experiences and having to work on childhood trauma and what that entailed in my case (food addition being just one amongst many maladaptive coping mechanism).
> A doctor might help, but I'm not going. The medical state of the art of dealing with obesity seems to be "just don't". A consult seems pointless and humiliating.
The point of this article seems to be that that is changing. Doctors actually have something to offer you now.
Thanks for sharing. I didn't really understand it (though I didn't doubt it) until I read your comment. What a hard burden to carry; I completely understand the state of watching myself do something unwanted (though not with food).
One thing that's helped me: I just make a rule to myself, 'go from one healthy thing to another'. I just try to find more and more relatively healthy (or at least harmless) and appealing outlets and tell myself that, whatever I do, I may not do something ideal but I'm going to choose one of them.
(A healthy outlet is one where I feel better after I do it than when I start.)
I don't follow it perfectly, of course, but it has helped result in a major shift.
Have you watched the new Brendan Fraser movie "The Whale"? If so, what did you think about it?
In the movie he does some of the things you mention, but I don't think he was vilified in the movie. I saw him as a hero at the end. Some fat people on youtube were very offended by "The Whale", I'm curious if it is universally offensive to large people.
If you're content with where you are then that's fine. I won't claim it's going to be easy to change things. But I do think there are few things you could change that will nearly guarantee success:
- There's no good or bad food. The number is the only thing that matters. Don't feel bad about eating chips and candy everyday. That's pretty much what I do. All you need is to hit the number.
- Always keep track of how much you've eaten. A big binge is not an excuse to stop counting. After a year or so, counting will become second nature and can be done purely with mental math. But initially, you want to write all the numbers down. Date | calories in | morning weight.
- Don't tie the counting efforts to any other effort. You mention walking 5 hours a day. That's some other unrelated thing. Don't ever mentally link this to your weight loss effort. If you want to do it, do it, but it should have nothing to do with losing weight. Counting and keeping records is your primary job.
- Your family should know what you're up to. They're there to help you achieve your goals. If you've already eaten, they shouldn't let you have a family meal with them. If they just let you get away with this, let them know you don't appreciate it. When you mess up, they should care and think it's a bad thing.
- Get this idea of a "cycle" out of your head. There is no cycle, every day is a new day. Your behavior only looks like some cycle caused by external forces post facto. Everybody trying to form a habit has a similar experience. There is nothing weight loss specific going on here. When you break a good streak everything can go out of the window. This is why it's important to keep the required actions as simple as possible. The more you couple different efforts the harder it's going to be. When you mess up you have to take the loss and move on. A good streak helps but don't dwell on breaking it.
- You have to have a sense of urgency and importance. Those around you should too. "I guess that means I'll get some obesity disease at some point" - just think how ridiculous that sounds. You know you can potentially prevent a serious disease (most people never have that opportunity) but you're just gonna sit there and let some cycle run its course. I mean, come on! How can you wake up everyday and not want to stop it today? What about your children? Perhaps they will inherit your eating habits (stats do show high heritablity), perhaps it would be nice to show them how to keep it under control? You owe it to them. Why doesn't your spouse think that's a huge deal?
It's one of the few things in life where you are literally guaranteed to get a good result if you do what you're supposed to do. There's a lot of advice on how to do this or that, get rich or whatever. But you can never prove these things are guaranteed to work so I can understand if people have a hard time motivating themselves. With weight loss you have a 100% guarantee of success. Personally, I don't see it as some random little problem. Pretty much any effort in life looks like this. You want an outcome, you think of the necessary actions and then the entire ballgame is about actually implementing these actions.
Hilarious and sad that he couldn't control his own impulsiveness in typing that comment and yet couldn't make the obvious connection to what he thought he was criticizing in others.
> But it's always true that if you manage to eat fewer calories than your body needs each day you will lose weight.
No, not necessarily. Several studies have shown that different people can get different amounts of energy out of the same food, depending amongst others on their gut micro biome, though stress also seems to play a role. It’s never going to be that simple.
> the laws of thermodynamics won't fail
Conventional thermodynamics don’t work when you consider a full human, which is a very out-of-equilibrium and not-isolated system. Conservation of energy does not tell you anything about the efficiency of the energy extraction process.
> No, not necessarily. Several studies have shown that different people can get different amounts of energy out of the same food, depending amongst others on their gut micro biome, though stress also seems to play a role. It’s never going to be that simple.
Sure, so they just need to compute their at-rest calorie consumption differently, and from there the rest is the same.
> Conventional thermodynamics don’t work when you consider a full human, which is a very out-of-equilibrium and not-isolated system. Conservation of energy does not tell you anything about the efficiency of the energy extraction process.
This is like saying that even if you don't refuel your car it will never stop, because different cars have different mpg ratings. A human is indeed a closed system when you consider the works it outputs and the calories it ingests, unless I somehow missed a newfound capacity for photosynthesis. The fact that it might be a bit harder to compute calorie requirements than what might be naively done does not allow you to just dismiss everything else.
> Sure, so they just need to compute their at-rest calorie consumption differently, and from there the rest is the same.
Not at all, because different gut biomes are more efficient than others at processing some kinds of foods. Famously, some populations are more effective at processing fish than others. Really, "amount of calories" works on average, but people with food issues tend not to be average, otherwise they would not be outliers.
You cannot take any assumption for granted. If it were so easy, we'd have solved it. It's only very recently that we started to grasp the role of the microbiome, and we are far from having explored it all.
> A human is indeed a closed system when you consider the works it outputs and the calories it ingests, unless I somehow missed a newfound capacity for photosynthesis.
You missed a lot of things. Radiative heating and convective heat exchange, for one. Our body spend a lot of energy to heat up when it's cold, and try really hard not to do anything when it's hot. This works differently for different people; I tend to heat up fairly efficiently and I am very rarely cold; my GF is the other way around. Obviously, this is also environment dependent.
Plus, we eat all the damn time. How can you seriously be arguing that we are a closed system? Again the problem is not that it's slightly harder. The problem is that it is multifactorial, that we don't know all the factors, and that the importance of each factor varies with genetics, history, and the environment.
> The fact that it might be a bit harder to compute calorie requirements than what might be naively done does not allow you to just dismiss everything else.
I can get that some people have different satiety levels or have lower resting energy consumption, but this is just stupid. Unless you're running a nuclear reactor inside of you, there is a limit to how much calories/joules you extract by oxidizing things.
Yes, there is a limit. Efficiency still varies across people and types of food, enough that "you need to eat x calories" might be fantastic for one person and terrible for another one.
Even when running a nuclear reactor, there is still a limit, even though it is much higher than that of our puny built-in chemical reactors.
I don't know about anyone else, but I also feel miserable with low energy when restricting calories heavily. It's like my body would rather partially starve itself over of adding too much body fat to my "energy mix".
>>Several studies have shown that different people can get different amounts of energy out of the same food, depending amongst others on their gut micro biome, though stress also seems to play a role. It’s never going to be that simple.
Nope still that simple. Your claim just means those people need less calories in to be in a state of calorie deficiency
I told myself this as well, but as an anecdote: I started to lose weight from counting each and every calorie and never exceeding the exact amount my weight-trainer set for me.
What did I eat? Fries, Pizza, Chocolate, Burger, … still lost weight.
I've lost 90 lbs, achieved a healthy body weight, and kept it off for years, but I keep trying to lose just 10 more pounds. I only make progress when I'm religious about calorie counting, including weighing every meal or needing to do precise food prep beforehand.
That's such a pain in the ass that I inevitably fail and keep returning to my body's new average weight.
I think you're right about truly obese people. They're eating so many calories that they would lose weight if they could manage a better diet.
For people who aren't obese, the same principle may apply, but it's now a matter of much tighter margins and much greater precision, and it's remarkably difficult.
Natural bodybuilders seem to manage their weight with precision, so it's not impossible with knowledge and effort. But I suspect very few people are capable of managing that if they tend towards obesity to begin with.
Strange, I've found doing meal prep one day a week that you partition into fixed quantities for each day to be way easier than making a meal every day. I'm surprised you found it such a pain in the ass. It's a pain to setup and do the calculations that first time, but once you do it's fairly easy to maintain the routine.
I have a family. I could do meal prep for only me and eat separately, but I value eating the same meal with everyone. And I'm not doing meal prep for our entire family.
I do this sometimes for lunches, which we eat separately anyway. But that's only 1/3 of my meals.
This indeed makes it harder. If I wok some dish for 4 people and use 1 tbsp of olive oil, did I consume 1/4th tbsp? What if 2 of those 4 were kids, so I ate slightly more than 1/4th?
Over time it will even out. Also if you weight out the whole dish it's easier.
I'm assuming we're talking about e.g. rice dishes or stews, curries, etc. "one pot" dishes. Otherwise if it's like steak and vegetables, you can weigh each steak and the vegetables, do them in different racks of a steamer etc.
Sure, there are other ways. For instance using different dishes than the rest of your family to limit portion size. You can share most of a meal, but have a specific side for yourself, etc.
>Strange, I've found doing meal prep one day a week that you partition into fixed quantities for each day to be way easier than making a meal every day
I can't stand eating the same thing multiple days a week. Are you preparing multiple different meals for each day, one day a week?
Not to mention that it's never going to be as nice as a freshly-cooked meal anyway.
> I can't stand eating the same thing multiple days a week. Are you preparing multiple different meals for each day, one day a week?
There are some things I can eat multiple times, some things I can't. Chicken breast is one of my repeat foods. I'll do a few different dry rubs and bake a bunch at once, then all I have to do is pick which rub I'm feeling on the day, cut and reheat when making a meal.
You could see it as a half-prep plan: pre-cook and prep a bunch of base ingredients in approximately equal quantities, and when ready to eat, create some permutation in a few minutes so you have a half-freshly cooked meal that's semi-unique. My gotos were: eggs, chicken breast, tuna, permuted with quinoa, rice, kale, broccoli all sliced and/or diced in various ways to make one of a stir fry, salad, plate, or wrap, with varying hot sauces or oils to keep it interesting.
One day I'll do a wrap, another day chicken salad, another day I'll eat it as is on some quinoa or something, and I'll cycle through options like that that are easy to mix up on the fly. Making a meal to eat usually takes about 5 mins. Apply your programming mind to this like a permutation/optimization problem!
I liked most of the meals because they were tasty and hit all the macros, and with the work put in the gym I could see the results, so there was a great positive feedback loop.
Every meal doesn't have to be a culinary masterpiece, just like every coding session doesn't have to be a symphony of mathematical elegance. Some coding is just glue, and food is primarily just fuel.
i don't know... we don't deviate much from what we eat so it's really about that initial tracking and seeing the results. after that you can kind of "eye-ball" what you are eating. the hard part is just being brutally honest with what you are actually eating and tracking at the beginning.
tbf it's like any learned skill, it sucks at the beginning but over time it gets easier. when i started getting serious about my fitness i was tracking it meticulously but now i rarely do.
I find when I begin eyeballing things I inevitably start to get them wrong.
For example, apples with peanut butter is my favorite snack. I initially measured out and weighed the peanut butter, then used the same entry for calorie counting and eyeballed it for a while.
I eventually measured again, and I was eating nearly 50% more peanut butter than my initial entry! I imagine I probably added just a little bit more each time, because my brain really loves peanut butter.
I don't think I do this with proteins, but with carbs and anything sweet I definitely do. So I have to be very careful.
I somewhat agree. The issue though, at least for me, is that I can only "eyeball" somewhat reliably when I know what I'm looking at. So, when I eat something "new", meaning that I've never measured, all bets are off.
I'm thinking restaurant / takeout mostly. Because you never know what they put in the food. And the usual suspects of carbs and fat loaded with salt can easily throw you off if you don't pay attention.
Why? My sugar-free protein bars say exactly how much calories they are. I also eat some zero-calory fiber (psyllium), vitamin and minerals pills, a spoonful of fish oil, feel great and loose weight :-)
It is harder to count calories when you make your food at home from fresh ingredients, or go out to restaurants. Not that you can't, but it is both harder and less accurate.
Mostly. I believe the other things I eat per month account for the caloric intake an average person takes in a day or two and can this way be ignored.
I used to eat a lot of cookies until November but stopped as soon as I noticed (at the clothes store) I gained some belly fat. I don't want to switch my clothes size. I firmly believe any visible increase in waist size (unless attributed to muscle growth) is a strong sign I must lose some weight (by reasonably healthy means - I would hesitate to take incretin mimetic drugs, they seem risky).
For how long are you doing that? I'm skeptical that could be healthy as you would be missing a lot of essential nutrients like fiber, vitamins, minerals. Also the palm oi in the proteins bar being the only source of fat will imbalance your lipids. Concentrated whey protein powder (without added carbs) are cheaper and better than protein bars though it still is a supplement and not a replacement for real food. But you can mix it with oats, nuts, chia, fruits to improve taste and nutrition.
I was just saying the exact same thing to my wife yesterday. We’re both trying to lose weight, for the millionth time in the 20 years we’ve been together. Exasperated, I just said “I don’t get it. I was an artist who had no technical background, and was able to teach myself computer science and now I’m a highly successful engineer. I did that. And yet I can’t lose 10 pounds to save my life.”
It’s so hard to eat healthy, I honestly cannot fathom how people do it.
> It’s so hard to eat healthy, I honestly cannot fathom how people do it.
When I started taking semaglutide, I finally understood it. I'd eat a salad... and be full and more than satisfied! I'd look at a muffin right after lunch, and go "eh, better things to do with my time" instead of immediately having an overriding desire to eat eat eat. Before, I could eat half a pizza and still be hungry (way out of what my body needs); now, a slice is more than sufficient and satiety lasts well into the next morning.
GLP-1 agonists makes eating healthy trivial and automatic, instead of a dieting state where you're thinking about food literally constantly throughout the day for months or years on end.
Too many people are convinced that everyone has the same subjective experiences of hunger and craving, but it's simply not the case. Some people implicitly hold this idea because it's a convenient ideology that allows people to morally congratulate themselves for having a functioning satiety circuit.
> Too many people are convinced that everyone has the same subjective experiences of hunger and craving, but it's simply not the case. Some people implicitly hold this idea because it's a convenient ideology that allows people to morally congratulate themselves for having a functioning satiety circuit.
Where does this line of thinking stop?
Is everything pre-determined by genetics?
Is everyone who is smarter than me, just actually lucky that their dopamine system works correctly, and mine doesn't, and hasn't since I was a very young kid?
I'm sure this response will get down voted but its an honest question. This line of thinking that everything is genetically pre-determined seems both accurate and somewhat depressing.
It means that if I'm skinny and can't gain weight, I need to take steroids and lift. Or if I'm fat, I should take a GLP-1 agonist. If I'm underperforming in my career or school, I should take adderal or similar pharma solutions.
What role does good old fashioned hard work and discipline have in this day and age?
Instead of thinking in terms of "everything", "everyone", etc, it may help to think in terms of bell curves and outliers on that curve.
Would you be willing to believe that, out of 7+ billions people in the world, there is at least one person whose brain is set up to constantly hammer them with feelings of hunger? (I'm not sure how a basic proposition like this could be rejected, since the chemicals and processes that govern hunger are something that science actually has some understanding of, and we also know that basically anything can go haywire.)
Next: if you can believe that one person is such an outlier, can you believe that hundreds are? Thousands? Millions? Whatever size that group is, it seems like a possible answer to your worry of when these lines of thinking stop. Perhaps some outlying group of people do actually need something more than "good old fashioned hard work and discipline", especially considering that thousands of years of people repeating such sentiments hasn't solved quite a lot of problems (beyond just obesity).
ADHD used to be only a tiny amount of outliers and is growing, thanks to the lifestyle we lead.
Obesity is similar. This feeling of hunger is thrown out of whack often not by genetic but by lifestyle. I’m lucky enough that I haven’t felt it all my life, but I have felt it during multiple phases of my life; i know exactly how eating the wrong kinds of food can teach your body to eat more than it needs and to adapt to that new number.
> ADHD used to be only a tiny amount of outliers and is growing, thanks to the lifestyle we lead.
I think this might be a misunderstanding. Rates of ADHD may be higher but I think it's more likely we have an environment which now challenges people with ADHD more than in the past.
The advent of electrical lighting did not cause an increase in pattern-reactive epilepsy, it just created conditions in which pattern-reactive epilepsy were more likely to be triggered. I believe now is the same.
If increased stress and the demand for 8 hours of uninterrupted mentally challenging work exacerbates ADHD, why wouldn't increased food availability - especially high density ones - exacerbate obesity in those with a a satiety loop defect.
If you eat until you are no longer physically capable of eating more it sure matters if you ate vegetables or pastries.
same thing we now have an environment that challenges our starvation signals in ways our ancestors never had to deal with. They never had an ever present source of dense calory food.
I've had the same experience and I agree. It's deeply ingrained but it's not hardwired so it can be changed, it just requires going against the grain in almost every area of your life in order to avoid being impacted by the modern food environment (in America at least).
Given that those countries have massively different foods available, massively different environments available, require people to spend massively different amount of physical effort during the day, it would not be that shocking.
The statistical/genetic view of obesity and observed weight gain in general, which is useful in its descriptiveness, fails to explain, behaviorally, why people 30-40-50 years ago-I was young in one of those decades-were much less likely to be not only obese but also overweight. And while it is true that much more high-calorie food is available today than back then, a lot of butter was used, pasta and bread were widely consumed, and if one wanted to be fat, one could easily become fat.
If the problem was all in poor impulse control and hunger felt differently by some people genetically predisposed to feel it (but >30 percent in some states in the U.S. feel it that way?), there would have been many more fat people in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, when highly palatable food became available. And, I reiterate, those who wanted to or had no problem getting fat could certainly do so. In fact, there were (some) fat people even then.
One thing that has certainly changed over the decades is the social acceptance of obesity and being fat in general. In my country, which is not the United States, people are still asked what happened when they put on a few visible pounds or promise to start working on it before anyone says anything.
I recently visited Buenos Aires and the difference in weight between women and men compared to what I see in the United States/California was hard to believe. It was quite surprising to see so many women and men young and old in good shape, or at least at a good weight.
But in the United States (and other countries) being fat and terribly out of shape is personally and socially accepted. Let me take an opposing and politically incorrect position for a moment, strange as it may seem: if I had a kid who was overweight, I would firmly tell him or her that he or she must lose weight. Would that work? It's hard to say, but it's something I wouldn't accept lightly.
But it's like the differences we see in the way people dress, even though clothes are not part of a physiological process that is apparently easy to hijack.
How is it that people show up dressed in a way that 30-40 years ago would have appeared offensive to others-I'm thinking of going to the supermarket in pajamas. Well, for one thing, that way of dressing and showing up in public has become accepted. People of my parents' generation would have been ashamed to show up in public in pajamas.
Ashamed to show up in public in pajamas. But nowadays, whether one considers the loosening of dress codes as good or bad, it is socially accepted and becomes almost a need. In fact, for the younger generation, what was once considered normal (for most people), such as making phone calls or being groomed, is almost physiologically intolerable.
Increased calorie consumption is the offender, there is little doubt about that. By carefully measuring food, one loses and gains weight accordingly (taking into account age, physical activity, etc.).
The social acceptability of being fat leads to psychologically easier consumption of calories. Personally, if it were not for the shame I would feel, I would eat 1 kg of ice cream every night. I have a great appetite, but also a great capacity for restraint.
The "mysterious weight gain" not explained by calories is, at this point, rather speculative.
> By carefully measuring food, one loses and gains weight accordingly (taking into account age, physical activity, etc.)
That was the problem. The lab animals have had their food careful measured for several decades with essentially the same food/lifestyle, but weight was being gained at a rate higher than other animal populations. Because it's unknown the "why" part is speculative, but they've got some interesting ideas.
Changes in animal husbandry standards, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and infectious agents were considered as possible factors.
From the study:
"There are multiple conceivable explanations for these observations. Feral rats could be increasing in weight because of selective predation on smaller animals or because just as human real wealth and food consumption have increased in the United States, rats which presumably largely feed on our refuse, may also be essentially richer. But these factors cannot account for the findings in the laboratory animals that are on highly controlled diets, which have varied minimally over the last several decades." (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.201...)
I didn't say anything about genetics, though I wouldn't be surprised if that plays a part. Might be how you were raised. Might be simply your cumulative life path leaving you in a particular state. Might be toxins in the environment. It doesn't matter; in the existing present, people have wildly different responses to food and diet.
As for your actual question, it depends on the particular thing we're talking about. For obesity, we've tried telling people to do more hard work and discipline, and it's been a spectacular failure. Plenty of people who do work hard and have incredible discipline in other areas of their life fail when it comes to getting to a normal BMI. There are large subjectivities involved, but when I got down to a 22 BMI at one point via the hard work and discipline route, I was constantly overwhelmed with thoughts of food, literally every waking second; this was despite trying and adhering to probably a half dozen different diets. Most people able to maintain a constant 22 BMI don't experience this.
This also is more common in our current society, for whatever reason (likely not genes, since we're close enough to our grandparents), than it was historically. This isn't some natural state of affairs we live in.
So, bring on the drugs! If there are ones that help other things with minimal side effects, bring them on too. Everyone wins, because we end up with a better, happier, more productive society.
> There are large subjectivities involved, but when I got down to a 22 BMI at one point via the hard work and discipline route, I was constantly overwhelmed with thoughts of food, literally every waking second; this was despite trying and adhering to probably a half dozen different diets. Most people able to maintain a constant 22 BMI don't experience this.
Out of curiosity, what kind of food were you obsessing over, specifically? Why were you craving that kind of food, instead of, say, lettuce?
Well, simple carbs (which includes sugar) are highly addictive, so I can't say I'm surprised. Your brain was trying to get you your fix by convincing you that you were starving. In contrast, if you were truly starving you'd eat anything -- including lettuce ; )
So, maybe you already tried that, but there's a psychological/addiction angle that's seldom explored when it comes to simple carbs and obesity.
That said, if there's a drug that you can take that'll numb those cravings down to a healthy level, there's nothing wrong with that.
"Hard work and discipline" are multipliers for the output of an otherwise-balanced brain and body chemistry. But they're no substitute for fixing that balance when it is imbalanced.
An analogy: "hard work" is what your car's engine does when you throttle it up. But that "hard work" isn't going to take you very far — or even in the right direction — if the car's wheels aren't aligned and balanced equidistantly on the car's axle. This "imbalance" will mean that any power put into the system, just gets shunted into running you faster and faster in circles, and/or into "spinning your wheels" and "burning out."
Bringing the car into balance is an overriding concern. You won't get anywhere without first doing that, no matter how hard you push the engine. Once you've done that, though, then the amount of power you're pushing through the engine — your "hard work and discipline" – becomes relevant.
Let's say there were a drug that made people motivated to study hard and get a lot of work done. Would the successes people reaped from that be less useful to themselves and people around them, than those which other people reaped from being natively predisposed in that direction?
My brain doesn't produce the same amount of dopamine as a non-ADHD human's brain. It's morally neutral to fix that with medication, same as it's morally neutral to wear glasses, imo.
Why are you more worried about "good old fashioned hard work and discipline" than taking a scientific and results-oriented approach to improve people's lives? Do you want to see people toil and suffer for its own sake?
Funnily enough one could argue that we're also biologically predisposed to apply certain moral judgements to the behaviour of other people and our own. After all, our environment of selection didn't include the ability to alter much of our body chemistry.
There is 0% chance that human genetics changed this much in the last 100 years (3-4 generations). Look at photos from 100 years ago, people were mostly thin.
So no, we’re not genetically predetermined to be hungry.
There’s something in our environment that’s messing with our circuits. Either some toxins (e.g. endocrine disrupters) or hyper palatable food (artificially engineered for max enjoyment and min satiety), or maybe something else.
But this doesn’t dismiss the idea that some people are genetically predisposed to be far hungrier. While true cheap and abundant calories facilitate obesity, that probably synergizes with people who have naturally voracious appetites. Someone in the pre-industrialized past wouldn’t have been able to binge on so much calorie dense food, but they may very well have felt gnawing hunger more strongly than their peers.
You're breaking the site guidelines badly with your posts in this thread. Moreover it looks like you've done that more than once in the past as well. Can you please stop? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> Too many people are convinced that everyone has the same subjective experiences of hunger and craving, but it's simply not the case. Some people implicitly hold this idea because it's a convenient ideology that allows people to morally congratulate themselves for having a functioning satiety circuit.
As someone who's always been thin and doesn't have a strong appetite, I couldn't agree more. I'm just enough outside the norm yo be able to recognize it.
There are times when I simply can't force myself to finish my food and it goes to waste, but the upside is that many people assume that people in my body fat range are somehow virtuous for not "overeating". That's not the case at all - I don't eat particularly healthy, don't have any particular exercise routine beyond walking, and I don't limit myself. I just get full quickly and have a metabolism that burns what I eat.
It's always hard to know others' experiences. I have a friend who genuinely tried to help me lose weight in college with the typical advice and a lot of support: he had the strategy of just eating until he was full and then stopping, and he just couldn't get why that didn't work for me. But when he hit his 30s, he suddenly started ballooning up and suddenly couldn't put his strategy into practice, to his great frustration. Did his willpower dry up overnight? Nope; something else changed to upregulate his appetite.
(I pointed him to semaglutide, and he's already halfway to returning to his college weight.)
I'm in a similar boat as you. COMPLETE opposite experience as other folks, to the point of pathology. I could not overeat to save my life. I cannot lift weights and expect any growth due to lack of caloric intake. When I try to exceed 2k calories in a day, I find myself so full I need to lie down and groan for an hour until things move and digest. Force any more down and I'll vomit. I cannot concentrate with a meal in my stomach, so I wake at 9, eat ~500cal at 1pm, and leave the rest til I'm done work at 8.
Sometimes I lose 15lbs when having a bout of constipation due to goddamn IBS.
Every person in my life, friend or foe or family or partner finds it clever and completely acceptable to tell me I'm "too skinny and need to eat more".
Others without my experience just don't get it. Glad these overweight folks have a tool to help them.
Since May, I have (very deliberately) put on ~16kg of mass, going from a BMI of 17.5 to 22.8.
Started at around 2500kcal/day, currently at 3500kcal/day.
> I could not overeat to save my life
You are likely eating the wrong foods. It is _highly individual_ what kind of food can people eat in large caloric quantities. Start calorie tracking and experimenting more, you can figure this out. Some people do well with oatmeal (tastes like soggy sawdust to me), some with various nuts (peanut butter is a fitness industry staple), others make themselves milkshakes etc etc.
Progressive overload is key here, don't just expect to start eating 4000kcal/day, it is not going to happen (and would not be productive anyway).
> I cannot concentrate with a meal in my stomach
Same here. I feel like eating makes me lose about 10 IQ points, not great (though I am at a place in life where I can make this sacrifice). Maybe more sugar would be helpful here.
You may also find the /r/gainit subreddit englightening.
I've been trying to eat more since I was 20 (am 34 now). It's been getting more difficult as I get older, especially with the onset of IBS a few years ago - now more foods and what used to be regular quantities cause my stomach to balloon.
All my experimentation has landed me on.. a mostly meat diet. Which I don't love (it's expensive, kills animals, impacts climate) but I can digest it more easily than vegetables or grains.
Oats are my everyday ~500cal first meal. If you find them unpalatable, try my recipe (it's literally my favorite thing to eat):
Combine in a jar night before and leave in fridge: 1/2 cup rolled oats, 1/2-1cup water/alt milk (amount depending on consistency you enjoy), half scoop flavorless protein powder, tbsp peanut butter, raisins, walnuts, pumpkin seeds, chia seeds, maybe 1/2 banana (if you need it to be a little sweeter).
I prepare mason jars with dry ingredients for the week, and add water to one or two every evening and put in fridge. Oat+raisin+pb combo tastes like my fav cliff bar. Banana + walnut are also amazing together.
I also recently got a vitamix and have been making vegetable smoothies midday to try and get more of them in my diet. I still cannot drink more than 500ml, else extreme fullness and bloating, but it's something. I'll add oats + avocado + protein powder to make it a meal with proper macros, but then I get to regular dinner time mostly full :)
Eating when full is a real bane for me. But there's bigger fish to fry in life, so I'll be a skinny guy.
I've known a few women with metabolism like yours. They actually had to work at keeping their body weight up. Their friends envied their slim figures, but it was a genuine health concern for them.
I'm sorry, but I'm a decently in shape person that tried semaglutide for reasons other than losing weight and I disagree.
While I'm sure we all are a bit different satiety wise (and I've found it greatly depends on how much I've been eating overall recently), your experience on the drug is not what the rest of us feel like all the time. It's unfortunately normal for our biology to basically want to shove calories down our mouths all the time. I consciously pace my food intake every single day. I just had a huge plate of nachos, some christmas cookies, and a pickle...and I could still eat more. The only reason I ate that much is because I feel a cold coming on so I relaxed my usual limits.
The kind of "fullness" you get on semaglutide isn't natural. I've never felt like that my entire life. The closest thing would be after something like a Thanksgiving meal, but that's more of a "my stomach hurts" than "I really don't feel like I can put more in my stomach."
My sister in law is the skinniest, most in shape person I know. She's 35, has had 3 kids, and has abs, an ass she clearly worked for, etc. My wife (unfortunately) regularly compares herself to her and in this case also thinks like you, that it just comes naturally. She gave me her old phone so I could test some stuff on it as I don't have an Android phone handy. She didn't wipe it. MyFitnessPal was on there, and she was limiting herself to 1400 calories a day.
Almost all of us work for it. Truth be told, and please hold your downvotes for this, I get a little upset when the rest of you get to have insurance pay ridiculous sums of money for a medication that makes it easier for you than the rest of us, side effects aside, and you think it's simply evening out the playing field.
And it needs to be said in case my wife ever finds this: she's also ridiculously hot and even though she can't see it has, at times, been skinnier than her sister.
>It's unfortunately normal for our biology to basically want to shove calories down our mouths all the time.
Not for me.
>I consciously pace my food intake every single day. I just had a huge plate of nachos, some christmas cookies, and a pickle...and I could still eat more. The only reason I ate that much is because I feel a cold coming on so I relaxed my usual limits.
This is completely alien to my experience.
I eat until I get full, then I stop eating. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever maintaining a healthy weight. I don't think about calories at all. I have no idea how many calories or nutrients are in anything I eat; I've never paid attention to the that part of the label. It does not enter my mind for even a moment.
Sometimes I exercise regularly, sometimes I slip and get lazy for a while. Sometimes I eat a lot of fast food, sometimes I pull myself together and make better stuff at home. Throughout all this, my weight does not noticeably budge at all. I've been 20-22 BMI for my whole adult life.
>Almost all of us work for it. Truth be told, and please hold your downvotes for this, I get a little upset when the rest of you get to have insurance pay ridiculous sums of money for a medication that makes it easier for you than the rest of us, side effects aside, and you think it's simply evening out the playing field.
I didn't work for it. It doesn't mean I'm a good and diligent person, it means I got lucky with my biochemistry and genetics. In another life, a different sperm would have met a different egg and I'd end up with different alleles and I'd end up fat.
It isn't fair that I'm living my life on diet easy-mode. If semaglutide can replicate this for people who aren't so genetically lucky, that's a fucking miracle.
> I consciously pace my food intake every single day. I just had a huge plate of nachos, some christmas cookies, and a pickle...and I could still eat more.
You give some thought to it every day, but do you think about it every minute? You could still eat more, but do you still have the same intrusive hunger to eat that you did before you started the nachos?
> Almost all of us work for it.
Your claim here seems to be that you work for it harder than people who have less success. But do you have any actual evidence of that?
Like, can you truthfully say that to keep your presumably healthy BMI you overcome nearly constant thoughts about how hungry you are? Can you eat an entire pizza and still be hungry except it's physically painful to eat?
People vary in their experiences of satiety. Many people do manage to be thin without constantly feeling hunger; that's what being on semaglutide does.
It's funny hearing people debate this topic on HN where the community skews heavily male. The vast majority of women have experienced both of these states of mind and in fact do so on a monthly basis. Three weeks out of the month I get hungry, I eat, I get full, and I don't feel hungry again or think about food at all for hours. You could put a cupcake in front of my face when I was full and I wouldn't even look at it. It requires zero effort to behave this way. Yet during that fourth week I get a constant gnawing feeling in my stomach that never goes away except in the first few minutes after eating something (usually simple carbs). I think about food nearly every minute of the day. Then one day it's like a switch flips and I'm back to having a perfectly normal appetite and satiety signals. It's an excellent lesson in how we're all at the mercy of our biology to some extent.
I’m a male with hormonal issues and I’ve also taken growth hormone peptides that make you ridiculously hungry. I’m no stranger to how hormones can affect our bodies. All I’m saying is that the type of satiety you get on semaglutide isn’t natural and I’ve never felt it before in my life.
Oh I definitely believe you on that. I haven't taken semaglutide myself but from what I've read it seems to increase satiety by slowing digestion, which is why it has nausea as a side effect, and I can't imagine that that's the same as the normal feeling of satiety you get from eating reasonable amounts. Did it make you less hungry in a sick way rather than a neutral way, maybe?
> Can you eat an entire pizza and still be hungry except it's physically painful to eat?
Same as the other poster, yes, but I can also still eat more without pain if it's a Large Domino's Pepperoni Pizza. If it's the Dominos "Deep Dish" though, that's my maximum. I can regularly put away a large Little Caesars pepperoni without trying, it's just a "normal meal".
The difference between me and people fatter than me is that after a large meal like this, my body stops "demanding" food for 1-2 days. Thats what keeps my weight in a +/- 3 lb range.
I know the difference because every once in a blue moon after I turned 30, my body's hunger signals will make me un-satiable. The experience of suddenly being unable to diet was jarring. I've managed to fix that somehow, thankfully. But it was very, very clear over several weeks that dieting was entirely beyond my control no matter how much willpower I had.
What semaglutide does is make the idea of putting more food in your stomach when it’s full…not nauseating, but something akin to that. It’s hard to describe. It almost feels like theres just no more room and the food will come back up. The main point I’m trying to get across is that (probably, sample size of 1) isn’t how healthy weight people feel.
And yes, I could easily eat more than one pizza. It’s a habit to simply stop at a few pieces, or more if I haven’t eaten much that day.
I’ve also taken growth hormone peptides that make you insatiably hungry. Literally insatiable - far beyond what I assume could be natural. I still usually limited myself. If I needed more I made popcorn or something and then went to bed hungry.
> Can you eat an entire pizza and still be hungry except it's physically painful to eat?
Yes. Except that it’s not physically painful not to eat (that would happen probably at 1 1/2 pizzas, but I almost never go there).
I’ve been feeling this way and limiting my food intake since teenage years (almost half my life). Sometimes more, other times less successfully (six pack to love handles, but never beyond that).
Yeah, and that's a definite bonus. It's the attitude I've read from people taking it that grinds my gears - when I read the semaglutide subreddit it was full of people saying "oh, so this is what skinny people feel like."
No, how you feel on the drug isn't how most of us skinny people feel. I'm probably somewhat uniquely qualified to make that distinction at the moment. The rest of us have worked hard our entire lives to stay skinny and now you all get a cheat. It's one thing if you recognize it, but it's beyond annoying if you don't.
> The rest of us have worked hard our entire lives to stay skinny and now you all get a cheat.
Someone could just as easily say that you've had access to a cheat your entire life and are now bitter other people have access to it. The fact that you have a stronger satiety response does not mean you are morally superior or are more entitled to a healthy life than others.
They could say that but they may very well be wrong. Obviously we can’t switch bodies and say, but I’m a non-diabetic person of a healthy weight that’s taken semaglutide. All I’m saying is the “full” you get when taking that drug was absolutely foreign to me.
> Almost all of us work for it. Truth be told, and please hold your downvotes for this, I get a little upset when the rest of you get to have insurance pay ridiculous sums of money for a medication that makes it easier for you than the rest of us, side effects aside, and you think it's simply evening out the playing field.
I don't really think this is a healthy way to look at it.
Yes every day is a struggle for most of us. I've been in the "healthy" BMI for a majority of my adult life, but only just barely. This requires constant effort and work for me. I assume that most "fit" people are similarly fixated on the quest to remain healthy.
But clearly, there's "something" that we have which makes it possible for us to succeed at this, which people who do not succeed lack. I don't begrudge them taking a shortcut, and I don't mind if they never understand my version of the struggle here, because I don't claim to understand theirs.
Fundamentally, we need to understand that our physiology has not evolved in a situation where we are both sedentary and have unlimited, good tasting food at our disposal, and any tools we have to make this situation easier should be embraced.
This is closer to disordered eating than healthy eating.
> The rest of us have worked hard our entire lives to stay skinny and now you all get a cheat
Ah, the student loan forgiveness argument, and the pro-spanking argument: I suffered, so you should as well, because suffering is intrinsically moral and pleasure is bad.
> This is closer to disordered eating than healthy eating.
I believe she was losing what little weight she gained during pregnancy.
It’s not about suffering. Like I said, as long as you’re aware of it I don’t really care past the fact that I’m paying for it with my insurance premiums…but as someone else pointed out, it should be cheaper in the long run.
I'd be very careful with this kind of reasoning. We just do not know the insides of others peoples heads. How can you rule out that there are differences between peoples appetites?
Personally, I eat when I am hungry. My body typically generates hunger signals around the times I routinely eat. At other times I'm usually not hungry. Sometimes, I'll eat just for taste, but that is rare. I've had periods of time where I was trying to gain weight for fitness reasons and it was a real struggle. My natural state is to be skinny and it's quite hard for me to deviate from that. There a plenty of people like me and there are also plenty of people who tend to be overweight unless they actively fight it.
Clearly there are differences. There are extremes and their is a continuum between those extremes. You can exert some amount of willpower to change your position on the continuum, but the closer to the extremes you are, the harder it will be to arrive at a "normal" position.
And this is just inherent feelings of appetite. Some people may additionally be subconsciously eating to fill some kind of emotional hole or trauma. There is a lot going on and I wouldn't want to be too quick to judge.
Right, I’m sure there are extreme outliers on each side, but when half the population is fat it’s clearly not just that. The only point I was really getting at is that semaglutide doesn’t make you “feel like all those skinny people do and look how easy they’ve had it.”
Apart from people like you, perhaps. I also have a friend like that but he has pretty severe untreated ADD so I think that plays a part.
> It’s so hard to eat healthy, I honestly cannot fathom how people do it.
It's honestly just what you're used to.
If you eat tonnes of sugar and fat then that's what you crave.
If you cut sugar out of your diet, after a while the amount of sugar you used to eat will taste wayyy too sweet. Same with fat - eating chips for example will leave a gross fatty taste in your mouth.
99% of food bought out will have a whole lot of oil, fat, and sugar in it.
Eating healthy starts by controlling what goes into your own food. Cook and prepare meals yourself. Once you're in the habit of doing this you simply start to replace bad food for good.
Don't buy junk in the first place, then you won't eat it. Always shop for food when you've already eaten (and thus not hungry). Slowly reduce / eliminate the amount of fatty and sugary food in your meals. Just drink water (seriously, just water, no sweeteners).
Combine that with an exercise routine and you'll be set.
Fat and non-satiating carbs in combination (e.g. chips) is bad because you will consume loads of calories without feeling full. Most seed oils (i.e. fat) actually seem to be quite unhealthy. If people avoid that shit when being told to avoid fat in general, I think it's actually a net positive.
Apart from them seemingly equating fat and sugar as equally bad, the comment was spot on.
"Potato chips are bad for you" is a noncontroversial statement. "If you want to lose weight, avoid fats", on the other hand, is deeply controversial and probably wrong.
I think that many people discover a particular diet that works for them psychologically and expect that to be the case for everyone.
I do wish that more people understood the basic research on satiety, though. I suspect more diets would be successful if people were eating ~2g of lean protein per kg of goal weight along with a lot (I'm not sure if people have studied amounts here) of dietary fiber.
This is exactly what helped me get my weight down: Lots of protein (whey / casein powder is pretty cheap nowadays if you search online; the exact formula is irrelevant unless you are doing top-tier bodybuilding; I'd suggest casein since it digests more slowly so it keeps you "full" for a longer time, and for me this seems to work) and lots of dietary fibers (wheat bran; drink a lot of water and eat it piece by piece over time; getting a lump of this stuck in your throat really sucks...)
Other than that your comment seems to contradict itself, I'd fully agree.
> I think that many people discover a particular diet that works for them psychologically and expect that to be the case for everyone.
and then did just that for a high-protein, high-fiber diet. OTOH, that worked for me too, so it is certainly something to try.
Re-reading your comment though, I realized that I probably misunderstood it and that you were referring to independent research that came to the same conclusion.
"Deep fried" is a problem because it almost always saturates carbohydrate-heavy food in fat. There's no debate about whether potato chips are probably just as harmful! But it turns out: the baked potato chips are just as harmful. Vegetable oil on its own is probably not a problem at all. Research on ketogenic diets suggests bacon simply isn't a problem: it's an extremely high-satiety food (it's physically difficult to eat a lot of it!).
Bacon might be a problem for other reasons; for instance, maybe the CVD correlation with saturated fats will pan out. But in terms of basic metabolism, appetite, and hunger, the current trend seems to be away from the idea that people should avoid bacon-like fats.
I'm not here to say "bacon is the answer" so much as to say that your original post, suggesting that there's a simple nutritional answer to this problem, is both glib and not especially well-informed. The truth is: this stuff is very complicated, and there's a lot of uncertainty.
Aren't baked potato chips generally cooked in oil?
I agree that nutrition is complicated, and I am in no way an expert, but I really don't think we need to get so complicated to live a moderately healthy lifestyle.
In general most people know what foods they should be avoiding. I'm not saying stop eating avocados and almonds (although I've heard avocados use a ridiculous amount of water to farm). I am saying maybe don't chow down on potato chips, pizza and then eat a muffin - and then repeat roughly the same diet the next day... when I think of fatty foods, these are the types of food that come to my mind (and I'm assuming that's what comes to mind for the general population as well).
Of course if we go down a technical track or move away from the general population nutrition gets complicated super quickly.
People with satiety issues (for instance, with hormonal disregulation, issues with insulin resistance, etc) aren't necessarily as well served by the "everything in moderation" message.
Food cravings aren't purely intellectual any more than needing to urinate is; intellectually, I can hold it until I find an acceptable bathroom, but physically, the severity of the urge and thus the energy required to regulate it varies based on how much liquid I've consumed, how long I've been waiting, and whether anything I drank is diuretic.
Similarly: depending on your hormonal profile, different foods will probably have different impacts both on satiety (the feeling of being full, of additional food being a welcome stimulation) and on "cravings". Some people can eat a "balanced" diet in moderation, across all the macronutrients, and be just fine; some people will consume simple carbohydrates (bread, rice) and immediately have an urge to eat more, as a dose-dependent response to the carbohydrates they've consumed.
For those people, "eat a little of everything, don't overdo it on the bacon" might not be good advice. There is in fact not that much evidence that eating bacon (or other high-fat, high-protein foods) is especially bad for you. But those foods also tend to quickly produce satiety, and they don't seem to generate food cravings directly in response to their consumption. Maybe for them the bacon, cheese, and eggs is a good call, as long as they're steering clear of the carbohydrates. It's a very big open question right now.
(Again: I'm only considering the goal of minimizing caloric consumption --- weight management --- not other food health considerations.)
Different people are different, and one of the things we are probably getting very wrong in dealing with nutrition is trying to come up with a single set of guidelines for everybody.
I don't buy that line of reasoning. I'm personally going between "I don't crave sweets at all" for weeks to "give me everything we have at home and when I go for groceries I will buy more". Maybe there are people who keep certain preferences or bodily functions for years, I am not one of them. My need for sleep is also drastically going up and down in bouts of months (when I need 8h, I need 8h and 9h is better, and when I am fine with 6h I am fine with 6h or if need be 5h, this changes every few months and then stays for a few months, not limited to a certain time of the year).
> It’s so hard to eat healthy, I honestly cannot fathom how people do it.
Learn to cook well so that eating out would result in lower quality meals compared to what you could make yourself.
Once you're controlling what goes into your meals, instead of outsourcing it, that makes it easier to control portion sizes, how much fat/oils go into things (I've found that restaurant dishes have an absurd amount of fat in them even when eating at "good" places), how things are sweetened, what you can use as healthier substitutes and what not.
You can eliminate almost all sugars with low to zero calorie substitutes, you can replace bread/panko/etc with low-carb flours, if you're frying you don't need more than a teaspoon of cooking oil, many sauces you can learn to make yourself instead of buying corn syrup and soybean oil-laden sauces from stores, etc.
Make it a rule to not buy things that come in boxes, buy fresh or flash frozen ingredients and make things from scratch. Stay in the produce, meat and fish sections of the store and ignore everything else outside of things like spices, frozen vegetables and protein.
Give yourself some leeway, too. You don't want to go into an all-or-nothing mindset, because that might lead you to giving up on eating healthily altogether if you break your diet. If you can find a way to treat yourself with something healthy that you like, that would be great. Sometimes I crave pancakes, despite them being nearly 100% carbohydrates. I eventually ended up with a recipe that substitutes wheat flour with almond and coconut flour, and to replace the syrup, a berry sauce reduction sweetened with erythritol. Barely any carbohydrates and the berry sauce is better than maple syrup, IMO, and goes with a lot of different meals.
tldr: reduce the opportunities to eat unhealthily, and increase the opportunities to eat healthily, even if you don't take those opportunities all of the time.
> Sometimes I crave pancakes, despite them being nearly 100% carbohydrates. I eventually ended up with a recipe that substitutes wheat flour with almond and coconut flour, and to replace the syrup, a berry sauce reduction sweetened with erythritol. Barely any carbohydrates and the berry sauce is better than maple syrup,
Eating a lot of fat is an effective way to lose weight, I agree.
However the fats used in restaurants are often used for frying, and likely have been used repeatedly for many hours. Oils used for frying can quickly produce compounds that are not great to consume, like various aldehydes, VOCs, free radicals etc[1]. If they've been used for hours, the chances of those compounds being in your food are high.
They are often low quality, as well, like soybean oils that can be high in fats that can be unhealthy in excess and might contribute to
CVD.
I bring up the fat thing not because I think fats are the reason why people gain weight, I'm well aware of how high fat low carb diets are effective. I bring it up because restaurants often put fats into food you might not put it in at home, and the food can soak a lot of it up, turning what might be a 500 calorie dish into something that's 1200 calories or more. If you're trying to watch what you eat, eating out can make that hard because you don't know exactly how much food you're actually eating, and you can't really rely on nutritional breakdowns you might find online or from the establishments themselves.
The foods the fats are in also seem to be high in carbohydrates, which isn't great for ketosis.
I also bring it up because of Ulillillia's decision to degrease the pizzas that were the only thing he ate. By doing that he was able to lose weight while literally only eating pizza for every meal for years.
A potato is far more energy dense than popcorn. 2 cups of popcorn looks like a good amount of food, but it's only ~150cal. A good way to trick your brain into thinking it's doing a lot of eating.
Source: worked for me. And is a basically daily staple
You've trained your gut biome to expect a certain composition of foods, it takes a bit for it to calibrate to something different. After a few weeks you can easily get used to different types of food.
> It’s so hard to eat healthy, I honestly cannot fathom how people do it.
There are some simple tricks you can try if you're currently maintaining a stable weight. The simplest is to get slightly smaller plates. Your brain will naturally try to visually match what your old portions looked like on the old plates, but now the plates are smaller so you're eating a bit less.
No other change in behaviour is needed to see some benefits, but of course going for a half hour walk after dinner and shifting more of the food you put on that plate towards greens also helps.
Ironically, we're just about to buy smaller plates for a completely unrelated reason. We moved into a new apartment and the cupboards are more shallow than our previous place, and our plates don't allow the doors to close all the way. So we're buying a smaller dish set that will fit. I hope that helps!
I was diagnosed with something a few years ago which if I didn't change my diet (no beef, pork, fried foods, no foods with preservatives, low to no salted foods, increase water intake to 3/4 a gallon a day & started eating fresh fruit)that in ten to 20 years id be stuck in bed too tired to do anything/ enjoy life.
For me that forced me to eat healthy daily and it has almost healed my affliction upon religiously following such a diet.
Just eat only liver, eggs, and ribeye steaks -- you can absolutely stuff yourself and you will lose weight. The problem is that as a society we are sending the wrong message about what healthy food is -- nothing from a plant is really good for humans to eat. A diet of only red meat, however, will not only get you in phenomenal shape, but it will also clear up a dozen other major and minor health issues. It is the perfect human diet and it is a tragedy that this is not understood.
I support anyone experimenting with their diet to see what works for them, but I wouldn't be so confident about extreme diets like carnivore working for everyone.
Nothing from a plant is healthy? That sort of absolute statement flies in the face of history and common sense and I can't imagine it's true for all humanity.
I honestly love the idea of individual experimentation. Like, there has to be a not-quite-scientific-but-almost-scientific approach that people can reasonably handle on their own. I'd love to see a book that outlines how to find the right diet that works for you. Like an operational guidebook showing you how to cut out specific foods, and how to watch for and observe changes to see what the effects are on your body.
What finally got me on right way on controlling hunger was just getting used to eating once a day and dropping a lot of the quick-burning foods that made me go hungry quicker. Not necessarily going super healthy but stuff like eating less bread/pasta and more say baked potatoes so still nice tasty food that doesn't get me into diet sadness mood, just shifting away from carbs
Also figuring out when I'm "brain hungry" (brain is bored and wants to munch on something/get reward for hard day at work) and when I'm "body hungry" (body actually wants some energy and is slowing down, fingers/feet getting colder etc.).
I've done all of these things. I've essentially been on a diet since I was 17. I am not (especially) fat, but the amount of mental and emotional energy I burn on not being fat is huge. It is a daily struggle. Like one of the parent posts, I've achieved a number of other hard things in my life that took sustained effort and willpower.
I can easily eat 7-8,000 calories in a day, and there's no amount of stairmaster can fix that.
I've also previously taken modafinil, and had situations where I've had caffeine having been caffeine-free for a while, and the appetite-suppression properties have me thinking "this is what normal people must feel like". I cannot wait until these drugs become available in the country I mostly live in.
Yeah, I've never struggled with weight the way other comments in this thread have, but I made similar changes when I was younger and they've been one of the best things I've done. I have one largish meal a day, with one smaller or a snack, and focus on low GI foods but in a mild way. When I get that "brain is bored" style hunger I go for tea with a squirt of water enhancer in it lately.
Yeah when I tried the "eat a bunch of small meals during the day" way I felt like some constantly munching pasture animal and also had to plan for all that. And any social plans threw a wrench in it, as getting used to frequent meals also made me go brain hungry quicker.
Now getting some frozen pizza for dinner coz I'm lazy/don't have time no longer ruins diet pace for this week
> When I get that "brain is bored" style hunger I go for tea with a squirt of water enhancer in it lately.
Anything with a bunch of milk works well for me for quashing hunger. Weirdly enough I usually feel more hungry in the evening than morning next day (at the very least for first 1-2 hours)
>I've heard people say that the solution is to eat (healthy food) when you're hungry, and stop when you're full. The thing is, I'm never full. I can eat until I physically can't eat anymore (not something I do regularly, of course), and as soon as my stomach has emptied a bit, I feel fairly hungry again. "Eat until you feel full" is literally a human experience I had never really had.
I hear people following a carnivore diet have had success in dealing with this satiety issue. The only things you can eat with this diet are butter (or ghee), beef, and salt.
There is a claim that nutrient difficiency causes the scenario you are describing. Your body is being deprived of what it really needs with your current diet and requires more consumption to continue its search for a particular set of nutrients.
The carnivore diet is not a silver bullet but worth a try. I will also mention it is high protien, high fat, and zero carb which has been shown to result in massive weight loss in relatively short periods of time (counterintuitive, I know).
I've heard people say "I'm only being sated by the extras/side dishes, give me 1kg of meat and I will eat 1kg of meat as the main course" and to a degree I understand, at least for "normal" dishes with meat and carbs. Maybe it actually works if you crank the fat contents up.
The high fat requirement is neglected when most first start this diet. People have been trained to fear excess fat so it does take extra directed effort to break out of the mindset.
Many manufacturers also remove fat so nutrition labels are more attractive to misdirected consumers ...this will generally lead followers of this diet away from overly processed foods (added benefit).
A carnivore diet can include many other foods than beef and butter. Being high in protein is also a choice, and not a necessarily a great idea. (I'm getting moderate protein and high fat.)
A carnivore diet is not necessarily a ketogenic diet, although it is a zero-carb diet. If you eat enough protein then your body will make glucose from it and keep you out of ketosis. But I agree that a diet of only red meat is absolutely ideal no matter which angle you look at it from.
I didn't believe it either... it seems to be mentioned in a bunch of keto literature online, like this one [1]. Some folks say it stimulates insulin, and some say it upregulates gluconeogenesis. I haven't found anything authoritative, so I remain skeptical.
So, it's just a thing you think might happen, because there is such a thing as gluconeogenesis? I went looking, and the only cite I found was a study suggesting this does not in fact happen.
Common advice does address this. A lot of dieting has been, in my experience, finding ways to make less food make me fuller, or to think less about being full. For example, intermittent fasting is a great way to do both.
I have gerd, and was like, I was wondering if this would make it easier for me to eat small amounts and not have as much heartburn... then I read this:
> As for side effects: I've had some heartburn, but none of the other commonly reported side effects.
And I looked up the less side effects, it is a laundry list of gerd symptoms.
I can confirm, these symptoms will help you lose weight, but I mean that tounge in cheek, I hope this drug helps a lot of people but doesn't have much in the way of side effects.
The heartburn has been quite minor, and only at night. Tums has been plenty for controlling it. (But I don't have GERD.) The heartburn itself is definitely not the cause of the weight loss for me, haha.
But intuitively it does make sense, because one of the primary effects of the drug is slowing down gastric emptying, so it causing heartburn isn't exactly surprising.
I was fat/overweight all my life until I was about 24. I had enough of it and I went from ~94kg to about 85kg quite quickly (through calorie deficit), then over 1-2 years I went to a low of about 72kg. I am about 75-76 now, and have been oscillating in the 72-77 range for the past 5 years or so. It still requires me to be mindful of how much I eat, which has become part of my daily life. I'm not very strict about it, I have days when I eat more and then I compensate by eating less.
I think the mistake people make is they think they can go on a diet temporarily, then go back to the old eating habits and not get fat again. That is nonsense of course, which is why dieting doesn't work. Dieting implies something temporary and you need something permanent.
> I still like food, and I still get hungry. But it doesn't dominate my thoughts.
This is how I feel as a default, I am a perpetually skinny person. Thank you for putting this into words from your perspective in such a crisp way. I wish everyone would have the same (non dominating) relationship with food as a normal occurance (and not some immense mountain to continually climb.)
> people that have never actually been fat. "I did it and I lost 15 pounds
Also people who have never had an older metabolism. It's different. I was also skinny despite eating a ton and hardly exercising when I was 25. Everyone I know over about 30 can identify when their metabolism suddenly changed. Diet (and to a lesser extent exercise) advice from those who haven't hit their own wall yet is worthless for those who have. Those people need to stop over-generalizing their (limited) experience as universal truth.
I'm 40 and I can't pinpoint when my metabolism changed. I can pinpoint exactly when I moved in with my girlfriend, who cooks delicious food, instead of me ordering a salad a day as my main meal, but my metabolism itself seems to have hardly changed at all.
I did a “dirty bulk” while working at Trader Joe’s in my 20s. At the beginning I could barely eat one frozen mac and cheese. A month of heavy eating later and I could easily finish 2 and still feel hungry.
Im older now so I don’t eat like that anymore, but it is still very noticeable to me how easily I get full when I am dieting hard.
> I've heard people say that the solution is to eat (healthy food) when you're hungry, and stop when you're full. The thing is, I'm never full. I can eat until I physically can't eat anymore (not something I do regularly, of course), and as soon as my stomach has emptied a bit, I feel fairly hungry again. "Eat until you feel full" is literally a human experience I had never really had.
> I can eat until I physically can't eat anymore (not something I do regularly, of course), and as soon as my stomach has emptied a bit, I feel fairly hungry again.
There's something similar here I've noticed while testing myself in the past: At least for me, it seems like hunger occurs when the stomach empties by a certain percent of its last maximum. No matter if I barely eat anything, or eat until max capacity, hunger starts after my stomach empties a bit further, but it doesn't take until I'm actually empty (tested by the size of the following meal), and the hunger tends to end after reaching the last maximum. To use some made-up numbers to demonstrate, it's like I can bounce back and forth between 60% full and 90% full or 20% and 30% full, and once I've gone a cycle or two on either of those, the low ends of 60% and 20% make me feel equally hungry and the high ends of 90% and 30% equally full, but I've digested more when the baseline is on the higher end.
It can be difficult pushing from the higher range to the lower range though, have to ignore/squelch the hunger long enough to reach it.
> I've heard people say that the solution is to eat (healthy food) when you're hungry, and stop when you're full. The thing is, I'm never full.
I’ve had a weirdly similar experience due to wildly different histories.
When I was a kid I was on medication that f’ed with my appetite so I literally never learned what hunger was as a kid. As an adult and long off the medication, I just eat and don’t understand the signals my body produces.
When I was younger, I had a healthy and active body and didn’t notice my diet was bad until first I graduated and took a desk job then it accelerated with Covid when I became sedentary and snacks were constantly available. I put on weight very quickly.
> What people who aren't fat do is intellectually recognize that "I could eat forever" feeling, and don't fall for it. That's where the willpower comes into play.
I don't think that is quite right, at least from personal experience. I have a good weight and I feel it's almost impossible for me to gain weight. And personally, I don't really recognize the "I can eat forever" feeling.
I love food, don't get me wrong, but I eat some sort of meal and then once I feel it's enough so that I no longer feel ravenous, I just stop and go back to doing something else. Sometimes I'm even concentrating so hard on some other activity that I forget about eating.
For me, it's definitely not willpower. In fact, once I tried to gain weight (more muscle mass) by going to the gym and counting calories, eating a minimum amount every day over what I usually ate. What happened was that after a short amount of time, there came a day where I just didn't feel like eating.
In short, although I do believe willpower can help you lose weight, I sincerely doubt a lack of it is the only thing that causes people to be fat. I honestly think that people must have a different metabolism and/or a different desire to eat, because I find it very hard to ingest enough calories myself no matter how hard I try. My body just stops me from eating very soon, even though I know I theoretically could eat more.
I don't know what to tell you other than that I was once skinny and young, but then I got older and fitter and my desire to eat changed. It apparently changes quite a lot as different factors in your life influence you, according to the article you're commenting on. It's a good read, I recommend it (and others)!
What factors do you think are influencing your desire to eat more or less? Do you think those will change at all during your lifetime, or do you believe that those factors are entirely genetic?
Additionally, what do you think of the folks who were fat, who then got healthy, and remain healthy? It sounds like you don't believe they can exist, since "metabolism" is just different for everyone, or that if they do exist, they're doomed to failure, since it's encoded genetically and therefore only a matter of time until they "revert" back to their unhealthy state.
Finally, what should we do to the people who have these genetics that cause them to eat and/or gain weight with little or no control? If we could remove those genetics or alter them pre-birth, should we? As for the living people, they obviously cost more to provide healthcare to, so should we split them out from the non-obese-predisposed pool of people?
"What factors do you think are influencing your desire to eat more or less?"
There is a lipostat or setpoint in the hypothalamus. It acts like a thermostat for fat. Fat levels are controlled by a homeostatic system, just like body temperature. The highest amount of bodyfat you've had will typically be the bodyfat your brain will defend. It not only does this by making you hungry, it also will downregulate your metabolism. So you become less active. Anyone who has been obese, is fighting their own brain to maintain fat loss. Losing fat is easier than maintaining fat loss. Semaglutide disrupts this system.
BTW, the mechanism of the setpoint is Leptin, a hormone secreted by fat almost exclusively. Muscle also releases Leptin, but in small amounts.
So if you cut the fat out, if you use liposuction, or you diet down slowly, or you diet down quickly, it doesn't matter. Your brain still knows how much fat you have, based on the leptin signals it gets. You cannot trick it.
The reason bariatric surgery is effective is that cutting out the stomach reduces the amount of ghrelin released, which is a hunger hormone that the brain sends the body. Again, disrupting the homeostatic system...which is the only effective way out of this mess.
I was expecting more people on hacker news to know about homeostasis of fat by now. Leptin was discovered 27 years ago.
I would love to know how any of this would enable or disable a person whose mouth was sewn shut to continue to gain weight, because it was my understanding that in the vast majority of cases, someone must make a willful decision to lift their hand, pick up food, and insert it into their mouth in order to obtain any nutrition at all.
I was expecting more people on hacker news to know about the existence of how eating works. The mouth was discovered... well, millions of years ago.
You can overcome the starvation response caused by the lipostat with willpower if that's your point. Not many do. In fact, there's a registry of such people http://www.nwcr.ws/ . They report having to be diligent every day. They work out every day. They watch their calories. They can't relax about it. That's why it's so hard to succeed in the long run.
You don't seem persuadable, nor too interested in the science of the lipostat, so I'll just let you have the last word here.
Thanks, I think you’re ignoring the forest fir the trees here. We are not lipostat monitors attached to stomachs, we’re thinking, reasoning creatures who are not slaves to our impulses.
Many, many people, billions of people, overcome their animal instincts every single day in favor of reason. Fat people can do this too.
>”we’re thinking, reasoning creatures who are not slaves to our impulses.”
I’m not so sure about that.
We haven’t evolved past our animal instincts and it seems like our conscious mind is only an additional layer on top of the “reptilian brain” - for lack of a better term. It has not replaced our base urges and our intrinsic motivational systems.
We are only sometimes able to shut down our unconscious urges. Even so, we may only be able to do that temporarily, as people fall off the wagon all the time. In fact going “cold turkey” seems like one of the most counterproductive things someone can do.
I feel like much of our ability to succeed via “mind over matter” has to do with our biochemistry rather than rational thoughts. Our motivational systems are ultimately controlled by neurochemistry. So there seems to be a lot more to this than just conscious mindset.
Okay then, present your citations. And don’t just copy paste a bunch of studies saying willpower can be practiced. I’m saying there’s a chemical basis for motivation and willpower, which is also backed up by science.
> What factors do you think are influencing your desire to eat more or less?
Well, as you said:
> It apparently changes quite a lot as different factors in your life influence you
As far as
> Additionally, what do you think of the folks who were fat, who then got healthy, and remain healthy? It sounds like you don't believe they can exist
There's no implication that they can't exist; just that it's myopic to assume that what worked for them will also work for other people who are fat, particularly when they've tried the same thing and report that it's failed.
> Finally, what should we do to the people who have these [factors] that cause them to eat and/or gain weight with little or no control?
If you believe that there are people who succeeded at losing weight and keeping it off, then you must necessarily believe there are people who succeeded at losing weight and failed at keeping it off, just as you must also believe there are people who failed at losing weight in the first place.
Are you proposing the people who succeeded at those two steps have something chemically the others didn't? Or what alternative explanation would you provide that explains the different outcomes?
Figure out a compelling answer for what that explanatory factor is, and you'll be a billionaire.
Chalking it all up to willpower is, however, unconvincing. When I managed to get down to ~22 BMI awhile back using the willpower approach, I spent literally every moment distracted and obsessing over the food I couldn't have, for months on end. That's not something that most people at 22 BMI do (unless you think that they also use their willpower to quash the constant intrusive thoughts). It's not a huge leap that others who struggle with getting to a healthy body weight experience something similar, especially because it's what they report happening. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who fail outright have even stronger cravings than I did.
What about 90% willpower? 80/20? I'm willing to go below 100% on ascribing this to willpower, but probably no lower than 70%, just based on the outcomes for folks who have willpower and for folks who don't.
There's just too much evidence supporting the idea that actively eating less and continuing to do so is a successful strategy for losing weight, combined with the obvious fact of simple human biology that eating involves consciously taking food and putting it into your mouth (sleep-eating notwithstanding).
I hesitate to speculate; for any individual, it could be a different mix.
It would be an interesting test to correlate obesity with other non-food related willpower tasks. If the correlation was high, on a population level I'd lean more toward willpower being the dominating factor; if the correlation was low, more toward the catchall non-willpower factor.
But you already speculated by claiming it's not 100%. So either you have another number in mind or are just being contrarian...
Further, your experimentation has a flaw; no two things carry identical risk factors and "willpower" factors. Food, as anything, is unique, so the idea of comparing it to other willpower exertions isn't relevant.
> Food, as anything, is unique, so the idea of comparing it to other willpower exertions isn't relevant.
So, you're backing away from the idea that people who struggle with weight lack willpower and are shifting to the stance that they lack some hunger-specific willpower that's unrelated to anything else meaningful?
That's completely indistinguishable from the idea that some people feel hunger more than others.
Nope, I’m reasserting that applying willpower to food consumption is completely possible, and to claim that willpower isn’t a skill is to deny decades of research that shows over and over again that it is.
You made some good points. I am under 40 so I might still have some changing to do as well I guess! As for factors changing during my lifetime, I am not sure. I don't think it's entirely genetic since genes almost always have some environment mediation.
I do believe fat people can get healthy and remain healthy, and I only meant to say that "metabolism" and desire are mediating but not wholly determining factors.
As for the people who can't stop eating, I don't propose to "do" anything with them. I don't believe in altering genetics or using advanced technology to solve the problem. I don't think we should split them out in terms of healthcare either because that would be cruel. I might also have some predisposition to some other costly condition like heart disease and then I would be in another "more expensive" group and just not know about it because it's not visible like obesity.
Well, I think people have different levels of willpower (which may actually also be genetic) and an interaction with their desire to eat. Some people clearly have much stronger wills than others, and that's probably genetic or at least imprinted early on.
Well, yes and no. I guess it might change it a little. Plenty of things are learned quite early though, so it might be some learned skill that happens so early that the person themselves are not responsible for it. I mean it's a bit of a complex question isn't it?
It's actually a quite simple question; if you found out that willpower were entirely a learnable skill, a skill that you could improve with deliberate practice, would you change your mind about how much agency someone has over their own weight?
I think the premise of your question is wrong. My reading of OP's comment is not that people have no agency, or that willpower is not a learnable skill.
My reading of OP's comment is that for some people, it is easy to lose weight. For others it is hard. I agree with this (while still saying that I believe that people have agency over their own weight and that willpower is a learnable skill).
There is no doubt that being fat or not fat is absolutely a function of how much you eat (and to a lesser extent, exercise), and that how much you eat is a function of willpower.
The question is the other parts of the functions. For some people, they can eat as much as they like without getting fat. Others get fat eating less than average.
For some people, it takes a lot of willpower to eat less. For others, it takes less willpower. Someone who's 5'5" will have a harder time becoming a pro-basketball player than someone who's 6'5". Doesn't mean they can't do it with a lot of effort and willpower.
So no changes of mind are needed, the answer to your question is 'no', because I already believe that willpower is learnable (and if I understand correctly, so does OP).
If you believe willpower is a skill, and you believe that deciding to eat or not eat is a conscious choice, then you must therefore believe a person can train their willpower to prevent them from making the choice to eat.
There are no other ways to see this. You don’t subconsciously eat, that’s not really a thing.
I don't agree with that reasoning, even with your premises. Willpower could be a skill, but some people could learn it better than others because of innate ability. Piano is a skill, but some people learn it much better than others.
A person might be able to learn some level of willpower but still lack a sufficient amount to prevent them from eating.
Why assert that everyone is equally capable of learning willpower? There are upper limits to skill acquisition, regardless of how much someone practices.
I’m not convinced willpower is highly trainable either. Your citations don’t claim that.
There’s no need to be snide. Use your willpower to resist the urge to be provocative and have a discussion in good faith.
If you actually go into those citations you’ll find they aren’t very definitive about the malleability of impulse control, especially over the long term.
“Our findings suggest that self-control is potentially malleable and the practice of inhibiting impulses may help people lose weight, eat healthier and increase their physical activity,"
And I think you’re posting studies that extoll the virtue of discipline, which is nice but it doesn’t disprove willpower has a chemical and genetic basis. Some of these are just about children studying in school and having less willpower when one is tired or stressed. Most of them only provide generic and non profound advice.
>”Also, "Doesn't disprove" is not, fundamentally, how any of this works. I'm honestly surprised you think that's a viable argument here...”
In a response to me elsewhere in this topic you said, ”the science is firmly against you” and I’ve yet to see anything in your citations that backs that up, much less “firmly”.
And you still couldn’t resist the temptation to be snide…
I’m going to appear snide to you for the remainder of this conversation because you don’t have good faith in mind. You’re in the “seeing ghosts” phase of this chat, paranoia seems to have you.
That’s demonstrated by your refusal to accept the basic truth that there’s a lot of strong evidence to suggest that willpower is a skill that can be grown and applied to weight loss.
> then you must therefore believe a person can train their willpower to prevent them from making the choice to eat.
Yes. But for some people, that training will be very easy, and for others, the training will be hard. My point does not contradict yours, it adds to it.
I think you are missing the point. People are not skinny because they "intellectually" know something. Nor are people fat because they are stupid, sometimes sure, but the societal trend towards obesity is not caused by ignorance. Read the article.
People absolutely are skinny because they intellectually know something, but the word “intellectually” doesn’t mean smart/stupid, it means “apply critical thinking to a situation” as opposed to allowing your animal brain to keep control.
To put it another way, system 1 will eat until its full, system 2 knows what a calorie is, and at least vaguely understands how many calories are in what you just ate against what you need to survive.
Skinny people are not smarter, they’ve either never had an impulse to eat more in the first place, or are able to react to the impulse with the part of the brain that reasons.
I think executive function might be a better way to understand obesity, rather than Kahneman's system 1 and system 2 thinking. Inhibitory control in particular seems more relevant[0].
Applying critical thinking (as opposed to applying inhibitory control) is only useful against obesity insofar as you can make changes to your lifestyle and diet. Lots of people know what a calorie is yet still fail to lose weight, because intellectually understanding something doesn't mean you can do it.
Making changes to your lifestyle and diet is still the best, most reliable way to lose weight; this article’s science is far from conclusive or “production ready”, as engineers would say.
The "most reliable way to lose weight" doesn't work for most obese people. The studies on tirzepatide seem reasonably conclusive, at least as far as weight loss goes. Is your issue with undiscovered long-term side effects, or with lifelong dependence on a drug that causes unpleasant side effects, or something else?
My position at the moment is that different obesity interventions work for different people. Obesity is the result of a huge number of different factors such that no single intervention will work for everyone. An obvious example would be an obese patient with thyroid problems, vs an obese patient with sleep apnea: both sleep and thyroid function can cause weight gain, but they have different treatments. I don't think we should ignore a drug that works well in some stubborn cases, just because other cases can be fixed with lifestyle and diet changes.
(I say this as someone who lost 15kg, went from obese to normal, and has kept it off for years by occasional calorie tracking. Most evidence suggests this doesn't generally work for obese patients.)
Let's take 1000 people above 30 BMI and divide them between us. I give them my intervention of semaglutide and lifecycle changes; you give them your intervention of "work harder you lazy fatties."
I guarantee you an arbitrary amount of money my group will be >10% lighter than your group after 6 months.
It can't possibly work for literally every single one of them, because there are still obese people. "They simply don't do it" is a restatement of the problem rather than a solution, and about as helpful as telling coalminers to learn to code.
I think this is a values disagreement, not a factual one. I view obesity as a medical problem to be solved and not as a moral failure, whereas I think you see obesity as a moral struggle and drugs as a crutch or an admission of defeat. To me it's more about balancing the risks and dangers of an injection and making sure people have tried less risky things first, and "lost cause" is not how I'd describe taking a weekly injection to manage an otherwise-intractable medical problem.
Where did morality come from??? That's entirely injected from your own interpretations, and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Honestly it sounds like you think people who are overweight have "failed" in some way, as I don't believe that at all. "Taking injections weekly" is also doing something about their obesity, which is just fine with me, I'm simply explaining how "willpower" is also a viable possibility. There's no need to take injections if you learn more about willpower and strengthen yours over time, and this is supported by a cornucopia of recent and sound science.
A failure of willpower is not a failure of moral character, why do I even have to say that?
Most "skinny" drug users are on drugs that have side effects including weight loss.
What's insulting is to take away the accomplishment of the fat folks who got healthy by claiming it was just their genetics that let them stop being fat, but also somehow their genetics that caused them to get fat in the first place?
I'm a former "fat folk" and I tend to agree this is more about willpower than many people are willing to admit.
I'm not insulted by anyone who discounts the effort I put into getting fit though. Weight and genetics and willpower are all confusing concepts and it's understandable to not be willing to attribute it all to willpower.
I will say that it is almost discouragingly hard to maintain this level of discipline for many years though. My body does seem to fight me in ways other healthy weight people don't seem to deal with. So while it does come down to my willpower to stay the course, I also admit that if I were to have an unexpected life event that caused me to fall out of my routine it might lead to weight gain again.
most of my life it was effortless for me to stay skinny - it actually took effort not to be underweight. then I started a medication. initially my BMI was 22 but it shot up to 28. I developed a terrible sweet tooth and binged on carbs, insatiably.
I quit the medication and promptly went back to 22. no willpower involved.
I'm sorry you have to struggle against your body. your body makes it a fight requiring massive willpower, mine doesn't - it's just down to genes or something.
> I developed a terrible sweet tooth and binged on carbs, insatiably.
This sentence is the problem; you didn’t “develop a sweet tooth” like you grow a tumor, you out sweet things in your mouth by choice. You had agency, you made that decision.
Stop avoiding your role in your weight, stop pretending someone else was in control of your decisions. It was you, you did this to yourself.
I'm not sure if you read my post, but I lost the weight I gained and got back to a BMI of 22 just by going off of the med I was on. The med caused cravings and lack of satiety. Going off the med reversed the cravings. This demonstrates that cravings are biological and not caused by a lack of self-control, because I didn't need self-control before or after, and I didn't have the self-control to avoid gaining weight while taking the medicine.
Craving sweets is a well-documented side effect of mirtazapine, I'm not sure why you're having trouble accepting that.
Seems like I'm late to the party, but I feel the idea of willpower is really underrated and misunderstood and I see it all over this thread.
First, willpower is absolutely a trainable skill. In the late 90s there was scientific support for the idea that willpower was a limited resource. The let people choose weather they wanted to eat a healthy snack (radish or cucumber, I think) or a cookie, then after that had them solve an impossible puzzle. People who ate the cookie kept trying almost twice as long as the healthy-snack group. They took it to mean that willpower was limited and the healthy-snack group had used it up in resisting the cookie. More recently this was disproved and an even stronger conclusion was reached - The reason why the stop exerting willpower is that they _believe_ it is a limited resource. People who don't have that idea, tend to stay in it longe.
Second, it's not exclusively willpower that keeps people healthy - things CAN get easier or harder. People who are already obese, for instance, will have a hard time loosing weight and an even harder time staying lean - because the body is indeed pushing towards that same body-fat content.
It gets easier when you avoid a situation where you need to exert the willpower in the first place. I recall a study where they seated kids in a room with a marshmallow and if they didn't eat it for X minutes, they'd get another one and then they could eat two - The kids who were allowed to leave the room for the X minutes (and did leave) had much higher success rates than the ones who chose (or were forced) to stay in the room.
I also recall some neurochemistry that makes it easier to do hard things (like working out) in the morning that later in the day.
People also tend to operate in absolutes - stay on a strict regiment of calorie counting until that one weak moment when they have a cookie. And now they're completely off because, well, they're streak was broken or because they tell themselves "I failed so I can't do it."
None of that should discount the effects of willpower. But the degree to which people need to apply it varies a lot. Just like it's easier for a non-smoker to not pick a cigarette than it is for a chain-smoker going a-pack-a-day. If someone is in the hard-to-lose weight category, I empathise - you have your work cutout for you. But training your willpower is the only long-term sustainable way to do it.
Thank you. If I could go back and time and steal this comment's content and post it instead of what I did, I would. This is what I was trying to say but I lack the knowledge and writing skills to do so, apparently!
>What people who aren't fat do is intellectually recognize that "I could eat forever" feeling, and don't fall for it. That's where the willpower comes into play.
This isn't how it is for me. Of course I've had the "I could eat forever, so let's not" thoughts before, but only in certain contexts like if I'm at a buffet dinner. Ordinarily I just get full and then stop. No mental pep-talk needed.
I've noticed in these discussions, people think how it is for them is how it is for everyone else. They use the same words to mean different things. Look carefully through all the comments here and you'll see that "full" seems to have very different meanings to different people. "Willpower" is another one.
Nobody can give an objective meaning to these terms, or it doesn't even enter their minds that they might need to, because "obviously" everyone else experiences the world in the same way. It's like the blind men of Indostan.
Willpower absolutely has a scientific definition, I’m on mobile but there have been hundreds of studies done on willpower and each and every one of them must define the term before studying it.
Please try eating only liver, eggs, and ribeye steaks and drinking only water. You can absolutely stuff yourself on this diet and you will nevertheless get in shape. It breaks my heart that people have such an upside down idea about what healthy food is -- people think they should avoid red meat and eat fruits and vegetables and "heart healthy grains" when in fact the only thing they should eat is red meat. It is a tragedy almost beyond description -- there are millions of people in your situation who have been thwarted in their weightless journeys at every turn because we've been getting the wrong information about what food is healthy for us to eat. In addition to losing weight, you will also completely eliminate heartburn. Just try it.
I did this and lost 18% of my body weight (BMI 36 to 29) after reading Gary Taubes. It works. The resulting blood chemistry worried my doctor.
Worse, it’s excruciatingly boring. The 60th serving of fatty steak is no longer delicious. I lusted for a crouton. Even onions are a cheat in a glycemic load regime.
When I was single, strategies like having no sugar, alcohol, or refined carbs in the house were practical, but living with a family and especially with young kids, they really aren’t.
I regained it all and more. I’ve made follow-on efforts and had several +/- 30lb swings.
I started tirzepatide three months ago. I echo what others have said above: I never understood satiety before this. Keeping keto takes excruciating willpower in comparison. I now know what it feels like to eat 3/4 of a normal dinner with balanced macros and not think about food till lunchtime the next day.
There’s a big difference between maintaining constant vigilance against desire and having none.
> There’s a big difference between maintaining constant vigilance against desire and having none.
This is exactly the case I make for fasting to those who ask why I like it. Nothing to count. It's super effective, much easier than people assume, and very quick. Also gives you a ton of energy and focus.
> everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs
Seriously? No thanks. Think I'll give you all a few decades to see what the long-term effects are like, and let my body largely take care of itself except when specific medical issues indicate that an intervention is in order.
The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake. So unless you are underweight, the benefits could outweigh any side effects. I am not advocating that everyone take these drugs--but I understand why someone might suggest it
> everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs
But as a skinny person, I can already easily reduce caloric intake as much as I want to. My body is "blessed" with weak food cravings and solid blood glucose levels while fasting.
So while I do recommend these drugs to people who need them, I don't think they'd help me at all more than merely deciding one day to monitor and control my weight to a very narrow target range. It's like the opposite of "its easy! Just eat less!" ... you guys are telling skinny people "Oh but eating at a maintenance/deficit will be too hard for you to do just by thinking you want to! You'll need a drug!"
I can easily lose 20-40 lbs just by getting lazy and not cooking myself food. It's literally no challenge at all. But neither is gaining 20-40 lbs when I want to. I know this is relatively unique, I don't blame obese people for "lack of will". I know they have different biochemistry because it doesn't take me any willpower to gain or lose weight on demand. It's literally as effortless as deciding to wear more dressy clothes this year. I'm 6-foot tall and I can set and indefinitely maintain almost any weight I want between 145 and 200 lbs within +/- 3 lbs, with very little effort.
Over 190 lbs gets a bit hard to maintain, under 155 also gets a bit hard to maintain. Supposedly "normal" BMI for my height goes all the way down to 136 lbs but I think that's probably total bullshit -- that's very, very, very skinny.
To be fair our ideas of normal are extremely skewed. If you look at photos from say 1962, you'd consider most people "skinny" (even photos of places like the US). Yet even then, 23% of American adults were obese according to the CDC. Even in 1987, the actor that played Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket gained 75lbs to play a comically obese Marine. Today he looks fitter than most people you'd see everyday.
If you look at the US today, an average of just 1 in 4 people are not medically overweight or obese. What was considered (and is factually) obese, is now considered "chubby" or "curvy" if not normal by most Americans for whom that is normal.
> is now considered "chubby" or "curvy" if not normal by most Americans for whom that is normal.
This is why I hate the 'body positivity' movement as it is right now. It's great that this movement tries to make (especially young) people understand that you don't need to have a tiny cover model body to look good (an that it's unhealthy too). But what it's turned into is that obese people are becoming an example to others without any attention to health issues.
It's no longer allowed to advertise smoking pretty much anywhere, but glorifying (morbid) obesity on social media and TV is fine. Meanwhile, obesity is arguably as bad as or worse than smoking.
I'd be curious as to what the effects would actually be on you (though I agree that it seems at best useless and potentially harmful for you). Would your weight zone shift downwards, or would it do nothing?
> The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake.
Has this been proven in humans? The last review article I read mentioned that it was true for lab mice, but resulted in a suppressed immune response, which would result in early mortality for mice not living in a sterile (specific pathogen free; SPF) labitat.
> The only proven way to live longer and reduce your risk of essentially every disease is to reduce caloric intake.
The problem with this is how a continuous caloric deficit affects your quality of life. Your body tends to adapt by making you feel tired and killing your libido. Not to mention that being underweight becomes a health hazard past a certain age.
IMO, if you aren't overweight, eating a healthy diet and enough calories to maintain your weight will give you the best combination of longevity and durability.
The main point against it for me is not that it is a new drug; it is that, if I reduce my caloric intake, I won't have enough calories to maintain my normal daily activity levels.
Why not just follow a diet of only beef, eggs, and liver? This is the most nutrient dense diet you can follow and as a result you'll reduce your calorie intake while increasing your feelings of satiety. Also, you'll resolve a dozen major and minor health conditions.
it's always really strange to me whenever someone enthusiastically advocates that others use experimental drugs whose long-term side effects have not yet been discovered. if you want to try em yourself then go for it I guess, but I'm good thanks.
it's interesting to take a step back and realize just how much pharmaceutical corporations have got average people to think it's perfectly normal to try putting random chemical compositions into their bodies and see what happens. maybe nothing will happen. maybe you'll get some mild nausea. maybe you'll suddenly develop an urge to kill yourself. but just try it and see what happens! ask your doctor if it's right for you (and if they get any kickbacks from it).
It’s illegal for doctors to get kickbacks in the US. The most the average doctors gets is lunch provided to go to a lecture from a drug company.
A free lunch isn’t enough to convince anyone to sit through an hour long lecture they weren’t already going to.
But if you’re worried that your doctor is one of the small percentage of doctors who is paid to give those lectures, you can look them up. All payments are publicly available. You can easily find exactly how much they were paid, when, and for what.
(The $20 in provided lunch is also required to be reported).
> have got average people to think it's perfectly normal to try putting random chemical compositions into their bodies and see what happens
This smells like you devoured some anti-vaxxer BS, btw. But for the record, these things go through a ton of testing and clinical trials. The reason science types are excited is BECAUSE this class of drug looks safe AND effective... based on the data.
(And I'm also down 35+ lbs on tirzepatide, so far. This is the way.)
if expressing any less-than-positive opinions about pharmaceutical corporations is enough for you to make an immediate learned mental association with a popular dismissive political buzzword label, then I suggest asking yourself why exactly this is the first thing that came to mind, and what that might mean from a marketing perspective.
I was prescribed 20mg daily of time-release amphetamines when I was 13, and that was 18 years ago. I have consumed somewhere in the range of 1300 grams of amphetamines in this time period. I have a dependency on it and I hate it. whose idea was it to give a 13-year-old amphetamines just because he spent too much time thinking about computers instead of focusing on middle school classwork. and a good mix of various antidepressants, none of which worked and all of which had unpleasant side effects.
the medical system in this country, which its pharmaceutical corporations are fully complicit in, is far from pure and righteous and unquestionably benevolent. if marketing (or propaganda, depending on how you want to look at it) has conditioned you to believe otherwise, then I don't know what else I can tell you.
That's fair, but speaking as an occasional 15mg Adderall XR person for about 10 years now- You're not addicted to it. The downer when you go off it will take a few days (I take 2 days, you may take a day or 2 more) and will be a bitch, but it will pass. I go off mine on weekends so that I don't adapt to it.
this has not been my experience. I have tried for up to four days before and it's just miserable, it's like all the bad parts of being stoned and drunk and none of the good parts. when you've been on something since adolescence it's hard to break away. after I re-accrue time off after my wedding this coming summer I'm thinking about about taking a week off to try to go clean again but I'm deathly afraid of the sheer drop-off in productivity that will occur. I have lived more of my life on this drug than not, and getting off of it terrifies me, even though I hate it.
I'm not exactly skinny as I have some muscle mass, still I'm pretty thin. I do not have to think about restricting calories and I'm still that way. I do not like to eat much sweets, I preferred a schnitzel since I was a child, so that's one thing. But sometimes I get a huge hunger when I feel my body trembling.
I do think that if there would be famine I would just die. I also don't think it would be good for me to restrict caloric intake. There are certainly ways to make my diet healthier, but caloric restriction is not it.
Why? Plenty of young and healthy people died of COVID. Only some vaccines are mRNA types, and, in the USA anyway, all vaccines went through the same testing process as any other medication, they simply sped the process up by layering some of the steps - all that means is that rather than wait to see if one study passes before doing the next one (save money or whatever), they just overlapped them. Even for MRNA vaccines, that's 2 decade old tech.
> Plenty of young and healthy people died of COVID.
The median age of death due to COVID-19 in the UK[1], as of January 2021, was 83. I haven't checked but there is little reason to think this has changed much.
From page 9 of Public Health England's Excess Weight and COVID-19 report[2] of July 2020:
> patients with COVID-19 living with overweight (BMI ≥25kg/m2) or obesity (BMI ≥30kg/m2), compared with patients with a healthy weight (BMI 20 to <25kg/m2) are more likely to be hospitalised if infected with COVID-19
A report came out at the end of the year titled Associations of Physical Inactivity and COVID-19 Outcomes Among Subgroups[3]:
> The ORs are striking. In the full sample, those who were consistently inactive were 191% more likely to be hospitalized and 391% more likely to die than those who were consistently active. Dose‒response effects were mostly present across sex, race/ethnicity, age category, BMI category, and history of cardiovascular disease and
hypertension, although the CIs sometimes included one. Although the odds were highest for patients in the always inactive category, every lower category of physical inactivity increased the odds of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.
We now have reams of data and analysis that backs this up again and again and again - some of which was even known in the first 6 months of the pandemic (which makes a lot of the official advice, like lockdowns and denying access to parks and gyms, negligent and reckless in my view). To associate COVID-19 mortality with youth and health is perverse, unless it's to say "it's very rare".
Do you put on a seat belt when you're at a car dealer and try sitting in a car? You never know, a car might come through the window and hit the car you're in and you'll be glad you had that seat belt on.
Most people won't though, they see the risk for what it is, too low for them to worry about. It is, of course, up to you.
Your analogy doesn't make sense, mine does. You're ignoring the two other upsides of a covid vaccine, that being lower likelihood of contracting covid, and, lower likelihood of spreading covid if infected. These are valuable social side effects of getting vaccinated with a highly tested, demonstrably safe vaccine.
I’m using the most important measure - risk. Regardless of whether your claims are true or not, they are simply moot if the risk is low, and the risk is low, very low for young and healthy people.
Much like needing a seat belt in a stationary car parked in a building where no other cars move around.
Another reason your analogy fails is it makes sense to always put your seatbelt on when you get into a car, regardless of if your initial intention is, for whatever reason, to remain stationary in the parking garage: typically one gets into a car and immediately begins driving. It's a very good idea to 99% of the time have your seatbelt on when you're in a car. The habit of putting your seatbelt on when getting into a car, and only taking it off immediately before getting out of the car, is a very good one to have. Given that the downside of wearing your seatbelt is essentially nothing, the added "cost" of wearing your seatbelt the 1% of the time you're in your car and it's sitting in a parking garage is well worth it. Plus, you're eliminating the risk of driving off and forgetting to put your seatbelt on, after sitting comfortably with it off and immobile for however long.
I even put on my seat belt when I realise I've forgotten something in the car. I get in, put the seat belt on - for all the reasons you gave - and then I get my umbrella or phone or whatever it is (which can be a pain with the seat belt on, but I'm doing this for society so I make sure to take my responsibilities seriously) and then take off the seat belt and get out, safe in the knowledge that I dealt with all that minuscule risk in the best way possible.
Do I need to add /s or was that clear enough? The idea that I should put a seat belt on while looking at a car inside a car dealership just in case I forget to put on my seat belt when I'm going for a drive (keeping in mind that all modern cars have seat belt indicators) is such a reach that I'm aghast that you bothered me and anyone else who has the misfortune to read your comment with such low quality nonsense.
You believe in taking the vaccine under all circumstances, we get that, but to provide this kind of garbage - and it is garbage - to justify it, only makes your position seem weaker than it was before you wrote that. I'm am not a student and this is not the 4th floor common room for new undergrads.
What other medical interventions do you believe we should provide to people who are at close to zero risk from the maladies they protect against? Please peruse this list[1] and tell us all which we should or shouldn't get, or maybe we should get them all just in case. Perhaps tell everyone why they should get the Yellow Fever vaccine even though they are not at risk of contracting it usually. You never know, perhaps they'll bump into someone just back from an area with Yellow Fever and contract it and we'll have to call in Dr House and his team…
Many of those we do all get vaccinated against as children. It sounds like you're opposed to vaccines until they pass a magic "recently dead" threshhold? Apparently that threshhold is higher than 6.7 million, which is COVID's death count so far. So where's it at? Or perhaps you erroneously believe it's possible to live in a functional society where nobody has any responsibilities whatsoever to eachother and the maintenance of that society?
lol, should we stop vaccinating against polio (in that list you linked) cause nobody's died from it recently? I mean, the chance of dying from polio is 0, right?
You say this isn't an undergraduate dorm basement but you're using couch-in-the-garage arguments here. Honestly the CDC article for parents concerned about vaccinating their kids basically handles what you've said so far: https://www.unicef.org/parenting/health/parents-frequently-a...
> But these diseases are not present in my community. Do I still need to vaccinate my child?
> Yes. Although the diseases may be eliminated in your country or region, our increasingly interconnected world means that these diseases could spread from areas where they are still present.
> What is herd immunity?
> If enough people in your community are immunized against a certain disease, you can reach something called herd immunity. When this happens, diseases can’t spread easily from person to person because most people are immune. This provides a layer of protection against the disease even for those who cannot be vaccinated, such as infants.
> Herd immunity also prevents outbreaks by making it difficult for the disease to spread. The disease will become more and more rare, sometimes even disappearing entirely from the community.
Even if the risk of outright death to you is low, you have a responsibility to create a link in the herd immunity chain (even though covid vaccines don't provide true immunity), to help prevent those rare few who legitimately shouldn't get vaccinated, from getting infected. That's not even mentioning that COVID doesn't necessarily have to kill you to make you wish you'd got vaccinated: i know plenty who got infected pre-vaccines that suffer long term side effects in terms of their breathing ability, one of whom was a marathon runner. Tell me he wasn't healthy before?
Why do you reject this social responsibility, that has the upside of making a possible covid infection for you dramatically less likely to hospitalize you, let alone prevent long covid as well as simply make an infection less uncomfortable?
> Many of those we do all get vaccinated against as children.
It's not relevant as I did not ask about getting vaccines for things that are a risk or where the benefits outweigh the risks. Have you thought about arguing against the points I made? I know it's convenient to use a straw man but it's really not very interesting and it looks weak.
> It sounds like you're opposed to vaccines until they pass a magic "recently dead" threshhold?
I'm opposed to medical interventions where the benefits do not outweigh the risks. You know, like doctors and people like that. It's why they usually don't give out medicine like sweeties. <cough> opioid crisis <cough cough>.
> Apparently that threshhold is higher than 6.7 million, which is COVID's death count so far. So where's it at?
As I've pointed out (repeatedly), the vast, vast majority of those were with comorbidities such as age and/or health problems related to obesity. Those people, who we know are at high risk and for whom the benefits outweigh the risks should probably get vaccinated, if they wish to.
> Or perhaps you erroneously believe it's possible to live in a functional society where nobody has any responsibilities whatsoever to eachother and the maintenance of that society?
Thank you, Chairman Mao, for your insightful words. The nail that stands up truly should be knocked down! How many more straw men while I have to endure…?
> lol, should we stop vaccinating against polio (in that list you linked) cause nobody's died from it recently? I mean, the chance of dying from polio is 0, right?
…and there we have another straw man, apparently by a teenager, "lol". The benefits of the polio vaccine outweigh the risks. I can keep repeating this until you get it into your head. "lol".
> Even if the risk of outright death to you is low, you have a responsibility to create a link in the herd immunity chain
No, I don't, and there will be no herd immunity for COVID-19. This has been known for at least 18 months now (even the NYT will reported that[1], on a loooong time lag) and was the likely outcome long before that.
> That's not even mentioning that COVID doesn't necessarily have to kill you…
The risks of disease severity that correlate with known comorbidities hold for every stage of the disease, from hospital admission, to ICU admission, to use of respirator, to death. It's not that you get healthy people all the way to the ICU and then suddenly it's the fatties getting respirators and dying. Jesus wept. If you won't look at the data at least apply some common sense.
> i know plenty who got infected pre-vaccines that suffer long term side effects in terms of their breathing ability, one of whom was a marathon runner. Tell me he wasn't healthy before?
Anecdotes are not data, and such a small number of healthy people have encountered severe disease that, unless you believe in magic, he had a comorbidity that is yet to be understood or known - either in general or in his specific case (do you have his blood tests or know if he's one of the people that produce low amounts of interferon?) We do not live in the world of Harry Potter. Or, you know, you could just look at the literature:
> The marathon running population does not constitute solely persons with excellent cardiovascular health. Marathon runners, especially those with a family history of heart disease and other coronary risk factors, should not consider themselves immune to either sudden death or to coronary heart disease
> Why do you reject this social responsibility
Because it only exists in your head.
> that has the upside of making a possible covid infection for you dramatically less likely to hospitalize you
The effect of exercise was greater than any of the vaccines on all health events related to COVID-19. Read the paper Associations of Physical Inactivity and COVID-19 Outcomes Among Subgroups I shared above.
> let alone prevent long covid as well as simply make an infection less uncomfortable?
If you're talking about preventing COVID-19 then you should look up what sterilizing immunity[3] is, and note that none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide it.
As to comfort, when I had COVID-10 I found that painkillers helped a lot.
So, I asked a specific question that you ignored so I will make it more specific and explicit - please, tell us all why we should get the Yellow Fever vaccine even though most of us are not at risk of catching it and hence, the benefits cannot outweigh the risks. It'll be interesting watching you argue against medical orthodoxy.
> - please, tell us all why we should get the Yellow Fever vaccine even though most of us are not at risk of catching it
That's pointless, let's just go to the heart of the issue here. You, for some reason, are special, and smarter than all of us idiots that listened to our doctor when they said "get the covid vaccine."
So, when I answer your question as to why we don't get the Yellow Fever vaccine, "because doctors don't recommend it, but doctors do recommend getting the COVID vaccine," tell us why you are right, and why they are wrong to say we should get the COVID vaccine.
I can only think of two possibilities: the vast majority of doctors across the entire planet are stupider than you, or, they're all lying for... some reason. So, which is it?
In short, you're doing what you've accused me of doing: not really answering the question, *why NOT get the COVID vaccine?* Given that basically every health professional across the world recommends near everyone to get a COVID vaccine, including young and healthy people, what's your *good reason* not to? Because something vaguely about "opioid epidemic?" Not good enough, that's a unique-to-America problem, we don't have the same issue here with our health advice re: medication and vaccination.
Doctors recommend that young, healthy people get a COVID vaccine because the possibility of a side effect are extremely small, compared to the possibilities for the same person having a really bad COVID infection with long term effects. The possibilities of COVID vaccination side effects are also low enough to justify the social benefits of a vaccinated population. Though true herd immunity won't happen, every step each of takes to reduce the chance of infection, helps in the overall reduction of fatal or severe infections. It'd be great if it was black and white, but part of why covid is such a virulent pandemic is because that's not possible with this disease. It was the same with wearing masks: nope, wearing a mask doesn't completely eliminate the spread of covid, but the studies bear out that it reduces infection rate: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119 (among others)
You said you don't think you'd get a severe covid infection, then claim I don't know my friend well enough to say why they would. You guessed at comorbidity, that could be detected through a blood panel, despite the greater medical field not being fully certain on exactly what comorbidity could cause a bad covid infection among a young health person, and whether said comorbidity could be detected in a blood panel.
You don't actually know for sure whether or not you're susceptible to a bad COVID infection, unless, again, you know something the rest of the world doesn't, which, you don't. So, the statistics indicate that you, like most people, should just get a COVID vaccine.
If the term "social responsibility" makes you hear the soviet national anthem in your head, I'm very curious how you feel about littering, playing loud music in public, and opting to hold in a pee until you get to a public bathroom. And if you think everyone that uses words like "lol" is a teenager, I'm really curious how you are at parties lmao
> That's pointless, let's just go to the heart of the issue here. You, for some reason, are special, and smarter than all of us idiots that listened to our doctor when they said "get the covid vaccine."
Thank you for providing a near perfect example of ad hominem. You avoid answering the straightforward question that is in no way "pointless" and instead attack me as a person. I'll take that as a telling win, as will anyone else reading this.
> So, when I answer your question as to why we don't get the Yellow Fever vaccine, "because doctors don't recommend it, but doctors do recommend getting the COVID vaccine," tell us why you are right, and why they are wrong to say we should get the COVID vaccine.
Thank you for providing a near perfect example of the appeal to authority fallacy. Firstly, not all doctors nor medical professionals, epidemiologists etc do recommend getting the vaccine for all individuals.
> tell us why you are right
Secondly, I have.
> You don't actually know for sure whether or not you're susceptible to a bad COVID infection, unless, again, you know something the rest of the world doesn't, which, you don't. So, the statistics indicate that you, like most people, should just get a COVID vaccine.
This is faulty reasoning. The fact is that statistically I am unlikely to be the kind of person with a comorbidity, apparent or not, known or not. Hence, the risk as can be assessed is small. Unknowns unknowns, to quote Donald Rumsfeld for a moment, are not a useful part of a risk assessment. I guess we'll find you hiding in your home made nuclear bunker waiting for the alien invasion? No, didn't think so.
> If the term "social responsibility" makes you hear the soviet national anthem in your head, I'm very curious how you feel about littering, playing loud music in public, and opting to hold in a pee until you get to a public bathroom.
None of those examples involve a medical procedure, an invasive one at that. A better example would be the forced abortions and impregnations that the three best known types of nasty socialists, the Soviets, the Maoists and the Nazis, imposed on some people. They would call that "social responsibility" too.
> And if you think everyone that uses words like "lol" is a teenager, I'm really curious how you are at parties lmao
People who would say "lol" at a party are people I'd like to avoid so it's not a concern of mine. People who are unable to handle their cognitive dissonance in the face of information that counters their ill informed, ill thought out notions, who let emotion go to their head and respond irrationally, they certainly do resemble teenagers in many ways.
> Thank you for providing a near perfect example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Appeal to authority is only a rhetorically valid challenge if the authority is wrong. It's not. And there's not one single authority I'm appealing to here: it's all the people on earth most qualified to say whether or not people should get vaccinations. If "appeal to authority" means "you can't ever ask qualified people what to do in a situation they're qualified to discuss, that's appeal to authority!" then I really don't know how you can have any sort of rational basis for existence at all. You can't trust your doctor, you can't trust your car mechanic, you can't trust a camera review website, you can't trust a chef to make you good food, I mean, what on earth kind of intellectual basis for existence is that? Absurdity.
> Firstly, not all doctors nor medical professionals, epidemiologists etc do recommend getting the vaccine for all individuals.
Almost all do for almost all people. I never tried to argue that everyone should get a covid vaccine, just that those who doctors recommend should, should. Very simple. The cases where someone shouldn't are rare and well documented. Your argument that the young and healthy shouldn't doesn't apply here. It's moot to bring it up at all, and it's bad rhetoric.
> This is faulty reasoning. The fact is that statistically I am unlikely to be the kind of person with a comorbidity, apparent or not, known or not. Hence, the risk as can be assessed is small. Unknowns unknowns, to quote Donald Rumsfeld for a moment, are not a useful part of a risk assessment. I guess we'll find you hiding in your home made nuclear bunker waiting for the alien invasion? No, didn't think so.
The chance of you having a negative side effect from a covid vaccine that's worse than a bad covid infection, is lower than the chance of you having a really bad covid infection. So, why don't you get the vaccine? Why do you decide that you're more worried about a side effect from a covid vaccine, than you are about a bad covid infection? The statistics don't hold for your reasoning, it's you engaging in faulty reasoning. This on top of the social benefit upsides of slowing the spread of COVID, reducing hospitalization, etc.
> A better example would be the forced abortions and impregnations that the three best known types of nasty socialists, the Soviets, the Maoists and the Nazis,
As far as I know nobody's forcing anybody to get covid vaccinations. I'm arguing that you should do so, not be forced to. My argument is more medically and ethically sound, that's all. So if you're a rational person with good ethics, you should get vaccinated. That should be enough, there's no reason to involve State violence to enforce it. Also, since when are the nazis socialists lmao. Wait... because the German translates to "national socialism?" I've never actually encountered someone that took the nazis at such face value lol. Do you also believe the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic? In any point it doesn't really matter to me what the nazis called social responsibility, their idea of society is ethically horrifying, so we need not consider their opinions on the concept of social responsibility.
> People who would say "lol" at a party are people I'd like to avoid so it's not a concern of mine.
That's a self report for being boring at parties fam
> People who are unable to handle their cognitive dissonance in the face of information that counters their ill informed, ill thought out notions, who let emotion go to their head and respond irrationally, they certainly do resemble teenagers in many ways.
Yet you're the one that believes, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that they shouldn't get a covid vaccine.
My earlier accusation that you must be smarter isn't an ad hominem - your claim is extraordinary and thus requires extraordinary evidence, and also requires a better explanation. Heliocentric theory isn't just bad because the evidence doesn't back it, it also requires a whole stack of bad explanations to justify it, inventing magic beings to carry around globes of light to explain what we observe in the sky. Your idea, that almost all doctors on earth are telling almost all people on earth to get a COVID vaccine are either wrong or lying, requires an extraordinary explanation. Either a massive failure in the scientific process in thousands of research centers across the globe - including in countries that are actively engaged in propaganda wars with eachother and normally very motivated to counter eachother!. Or, conspiracy, which, you know, if you want to be on the side of the flat earthers, please by all means, but at least be aware of the hilarious irony of doing so and then turning around and accusing those of us that got vaccinated as engaging in "cognitive dissonance."
You haven't provided a good argument to not get vaccinated. You dropped a lot of links around, but none of them counter the core argument: most people, as recommended by their doctors, should get a COVID vaccine.
> as will anyone else reading this.
lol, nobody is reading this, days old and deeply buried thread. Just me and you here.
> Appeal to authority is only a rhetorically valid challenge if the authority is wrong.…
That whole paragraph is erroneous from the start.
The truth or falsity of a statement that appeals to authority is not what make it fallacious - nor would it for any logical fallacy. As the name hints at, it is the logic which is in question, the reasoning, the form, not the truth. "2 + 2 = 4 because n + 2 = 4" is fallacious yet the statement "2 + 2 = 4" is correct. Appeal to authority is a fallacy of relevance - like ad hominem - because it does not address the reasoning. 2 + 2 = 4 isn't true because my maths teacher says it's true, and to say it is because my maths teacher is a maths teacher or has a degree in maths is irrelevant to why 2 + 2 = 4 is correct (or not).
Schoolboy error.
> And there's not one single authority I'm appealing to here: it's all the people on earth most qualified to say whether or not people should get vaccinations.
Except for notable exceptions:
“No. Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.” - Martin Kulldorff, until recently he was professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. I'll let Wikipedia continue:
> He is a member of the US Food and Drug Administration's Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and a former member of the Vaccine Safety Subgroup of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Or we can look at his fellow signatory to the Great Barrington Declaration, Sunetra Gupta:
“What we’ve seen is that in normal, healthy people, who are not elderly or frail or don’t have comorbidities, this virus is not something to worry about no more than how we worry about flu,”
“most of us don’t need to worry about coronavirus,”
and unquoted but attributed[1]: “Gupta said that she thinks the coronavirus pandemic will end naturally and will become part of our lives just like influenza.”
Sunetra Gupta is an infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.
So you're stuck with your appeal to authority, and you've multiplied it with argumentum ad populum.
> Your argument that the young and healthy shouldn't doesn't apply here. It's moot to bring it up at all, and it's bad rhetoric.
I don't think you understand what moot means, and as for bad rhetoric, "lol".
Case in point:
> The chance of you having a negative side effect from a covid vaccine that's worse than a bad covid infection, is lower than the chance of you having a really bad covid infection.
Now that's moot.
> So, why don't you get the vaccine?
Because I'm not at risk. (See, it was moot)
> This on top of the social benefit upsides of slowing the spread of COVID, reducing hospitalization, etc.
a) Thanks again, Mao
b) Isolating when symptomatic slows the spread more effectively
c) It reduces hospitalisation for those at risk
> As far as I know nobody's forcing anybody to get covid vaccinations.
Let's look at the first result I got for "Biden vaccine mandate" from NBC News[2] to see your wilful ignorance:
*Biden announces sweeping vaccine mandates affecting millions of workers*
> My argument is more medically and ethically sound, that's all.
On that[3]:
> The measles vaccine provided sterilizing immunity in most people.
> That's not the case with these vaccines.
> How can mandates be moral in this case? With a non-sterilizing product, it's nobody's business except mine if I want to get vacced or not.
>
> Sunetra Gupta @SunetraGupta
> Jan 28, 2022
> Replying to @neorevolt
> Exactly
Well well. Not so moral, in the eyes of a world renowned expert in vaccines.
Your argument is based on false premises and a lack of basic knowledge. It is littered with errors of reasoning and fact which makes it in no way ethically sound. Much like moot and fallacy, I doubt you know what sound means in the context of argument.
> Also, since when are the nazis socialists lmao. Wait... because the German translates to "national socialism?"
Yes, I based it entirely on the name.I wouldn't, for instance, have bothered to know basic facts about the most important event of the 20th century before coming to that conclusion, just the name. Why didn't they call themselves international socialists? I wonder. Why are they against individual liberty? I can't fathom. Why does the 25 point plan read like a socialist manifesto. Who knows?
Jesus wept.
> My earlier accusation that you must be smarter isn't an ad hominem - your claim is extraordinary
It's ordinary, medical orthodoxy, which is why mandates and pushing for not at risk populations to vaccinate is contentious.
> Your idea, that almost all doctors on earth are telling almost all people on earth to get a COVID vaccine are either wrong or lying, requires an extraordinary explanation.
I haven't ever claimed such a thing, while you are making a claim on behalf of "all doctors on earth" that they haven't made either. The more correct claim is that doctors in top government positions are telling people to get a COVID vaccine. Others contradict them (I can give you a long list).
> Either a massive failure in the scientific process in thousands of research centers across the globe
From [4]:
> Randomized trials show all-cause mortality reduction from the AZ/J&J/S adenovirus-vector vaccines (RR=0.37, 95%CI:0.19-0.70) but not from the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.63-1.71). By Dr. @StabellBenn et al.
And from Stabell-Benn's interview with Unherd[5]:
> It is also a bit of a Pandora’s box, I think, for health authorities, because if they start acknowledging these effects there is also the huge problem of potential negative non-specific effects that have actually been brought to the attention of the WHO already 20 years ago, but they haven’t really responded with the investigations. So you can see the potential backlash for the WHO, for vaccination programmes, if it actually comes out that some vaccines have carried these negative non-specific effects.
> So I’ve been in this business for many years and I know that there are powers out there who aren’t interested in really digging into these findings. And again, it also has implications for the way we test vaccines, so you can see it is complicated stuff also for companies, for regulators, if we need to design vaccine phase 3 trials which do not only study the specific disease but also study all-cause mortality and morbidity.
If the mRNA vaccines aren't as effective then the risk/benefit ratio changes, so I should take something like the AZ vaccine, but that was withdrawn in several countries as the risks outweighed the benefits, but I should still get the vaccine, right?
You might also note this[6], in the BMJ, November 2021:
> A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company [Pfizer] falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson (video 1), emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.
That's a massive failure - and possible conspiracy - in some research centers across the globe. Isn't funny how that company's claims of vaccine efficacy and safety are now being questioned? What's really funny (not haha) is how they weren't questioned more before, but we have the Twitter Files to answer that conundrum.
> if you want to be on the side of the flat earthers,
Kulldorf, Gupta and Stabell-Benn are flat earthers? Interesting.
> please by all means, but at least be aware of the hilarious irony of doing so and then turning around and accusing those of us that got vaccinated as engaging in "cognitive dissonance."
And there we have your go-to, a straw man. I have written repeatedly that it is up to people to decide whether they get the vaccine, and that they should base it on their situation i.e. risk/benefit and good conscience. I've not accused anyone of cognitive dissonance for getting vaccinated. I have, however, observed cognitive dissonance in you, and we're about to see some more:
> You haven't provided a good argument to not get vaccinated.
Uh huh.
> You dropped a lot of links around,
Right.
> but none of them counter the core argument
Didn't read them, I see. Finally:
> > as will anyone else reading this.
> lol, nobody is reading this, days old and deeply buried thread. Just me and you here.
I often read entire threads on HN. Perhaps this isn't the place for you, it requires a higher standard of thought, which itself requires concentration.
> 2 + 2 = 4 isn't true because my maths teacher says it's true, and to say it is because my maths teacher is a maths teacher or has a degree in maths is irrelevant to why 2 + 2 = 4 is correct (or not).
...right, but the math teacher is less likely to teach you bad math, than, say, an antivaxxer on hackernews. And the great thing is, the greater medical authority is, as I said, not one person, but tens of thousands of people among thousands of institutions in hundreds of countries. I'm not "appealing to authority," I'm appealing to basic reasoning at this point.
> US Food and Drug Administration's Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and a former member of the Vaccine Safety Subgroup of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
You immediately begin appealing to authority, lol.
> Thanks again, Mao
If you genuinely believe doing things for the betterment of the world is communism, your ethical system, and understanding of history, is bonkers. But, we already knew that, because you continue to claim the nazis were socialists. No, they were not.
> Isolating when symptomatic slows the spread more effectively
...except you can be asymptomatic infectious.
> It reduces hospitalisation for those at risk
Which, again, roll the dice on that. If you believe you are at higher chance of bad vaccine side effect than bad covid infection, you're simply wrong.
> Biden announces sweeping vaccine mandates affecting millions of workers
I fail to see any similarity between this and nazis sterilizing jews at gunpoint. Wait a second... are you saying that under capitalism, all labor is extracted through force of violence, because one will be homeless and starve if one doesn't work, and thus anything that affects one's ability to do employment is the same as sentencing them to homelessness and starvation, and in the usa, no healthcare? Woah that's weird, I hear the soviet national anthem.
You're talking about this gupta person again, let's see how much better they are at virology than the entire world of experts they're disagreeing with. Ah, in May of 2020, they said
> "the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in [the UK]. So, I think [the infection fatality rate] would be definitely less than one in a thousand, and probably closer to one in ten thousand."
Weird, turns out it's actually about 2.3 in a thousand, or as high as 6.6 in a thousand. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana... so they were either double off in their expert estimate... or far, far more off base. As for "it's on the way out," in May of 2020, hahaha, yeah, some fantastic, smarter-than-everyone-else expert you've got there.
Your champion of the antivax cause is not a very popular person, which isn't itself an indictment if they had good science, but... they don't. Their science has been off every single time. Could it be that the greater scientific community disagrees with Gupta because... Gupta is wrong?
> but we have the Twitter Files to answer that conundrum.
oh ffs, if you want to see hunter biden's dick you can just google it
> Kulldorf, Gupta and Stabell-Benn are flat earthers? Interesting.
No but they all have these super weird ties to the American Institute for Economic Research, libertarian think tank famous denying climate change as a major risk, or this whizz bang of an article justifying sweat shop labor https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-006-1006-z fun group of folks! But definitely these guys are more trustworthy than the greater scientific community that basically roundly disagrees with them.
Their brainchild, that Barrington Declaration, is weird to bring up, arguing for "protecting vulnerable groups" against infection, while the signatories get on TV and argue against any sort of mandate doing just that. No wonder they were accused of being politically motivated, they're constantly contradicting themselves. They also just say wrong things - Remember when Kulldorff argued that influenza was deadlier than COVID, despite it only killing one kid that year? Against COVID's 1k?
You basically are just restating the various viewpoints of Barrington signatories, but those have all been probed to destruction. Big fan of herd immunity? So was Sweden. The only upside is now we can at least point at them and say "well, it was said this strategy wouldn't work, and as we can see, it didn't." Here, you like wikipedia, they collated all the oppositions to Barrington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#C...
But this is a lot of words for what I think is really happening here: You're some form of conservative (maybe in your country you call it "libertarianism"), conservatives identify alongside covid denialism, so you do too. Your weird ideas about nazi political ideology and minimizing of their destructive actions by comparing it to, lol, vaccine mandates, illustrates this further. It never mattered what the science said, Your People said COVID is fake so you do too.
> Perhaps this isn't the place for you, it requires a higher standard of thought, which itself requires concentration.
> I'm not "appealing to authority," I'm appealing to basic reasoning at this point.
No, what you wrote in that paragraph is a further appeal to authority. It's what the cool kids call doubling down.
> You immediately begin appealing to authority, lol.
I'll explain what an appeal to authority is again for those who think they're too cool for school.
Most informal logical fallacies, when made, are fallacies of relevance as they do not address the logic of a statement or line of reasoning (else, necessarily, they are a failing of the logic, but mostly people make fallacies of relevance). As you pointed out, a maths teacher is less likely to teach bad mathematics but that isn't a valid or sound defence of any particular mathematical statement that a maths teacher makes. In order to defend a particular statement a mathematician has to do what maths teachers tell their students to do, show the working.
To state someone's expertise in an area is not a fallacy of relevance unless it sits in place of reasoning, otherwise it only provides context. If the reasoning is supplied then look at the reasoning.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1]:
> 9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.
So, look at the information, weigh it up, and come to what you think is right. Try to avoid making glaringly obvious mistakes along the way, like the ones you have repeatedly made.
> Big fan of herd immunity? So was Sweden. The only upside is now we can at least point at them and say "well, it was said this strategy wouldn't work, and as we can see, it didn't."
Firstly, who isn't a fan of herd immunity? Do you even understand what it is?
Lastly, because what else needs to be said about Sweden after this, the data[2] shows that Sweden did not make a horrible mistake with their approach.
I can skip the rest, sifting out substantive argument from the conspiracy theories and ad hominem from that is surely a waste of time, but this caught my eye and gave me a good chuckle:
> But this is a lot of words for what I think is really happening here: You're some form of conservative (maybe in your country you call it "libertarianism"), conservatives identify alongside covid denialism, so you do too. Your weird ideas about nazi political ideology and minimizing of their destructive actions by comparing it to, lol, vaccine mandates, illustrates this further. It never mattered what the science said, Your People said COVID is fake so you do too.
Cognitive dissonance often requires that you create some evil character, an other, for those you disagree with. (ironically, something Soviets, Mao, and Nazis did). Suffering from it certainly hasn't helped with the accuracy of those guesses, I'd suggest you give it up as soon as possible.
Do try though to pick up a history book in future, at the very least.
>all vaccines went through the same testing process as any other medication, they simply sped the process up by layering some of the steps - all that means is that rather than wait to see if one study passes before doing the next one (save money or whatever), they just overlapped them
This is misinformation. The normal process involves at least 4-5 years of observation to identify long-term side effects; you can't speed this up, as no matter how many people you test, it's not going to make long-term side effects manifest sooner. And while the technology has been around for 20 years, it certainly hasn't been trialed on humans until very recently, due to difficulty finding a safe delivery mechanism.
> The normal process involves at least 4-5 years of observation to identify long-term side effects.
If you have for instance an Ebola vaccine, how can you show it works when there's only a few hundred cases a year? You can't just infect people. You have to vaccinate a bunch of test candidates and wait. Sometimes years until you can show a statistical advantage.
With COVID literally everyone had it so they could show it worked by the end of the weekend.
> ... it's not going to make long-term side effects manifest sooner.
They're looking for short-term side effects, they're testing efficacy and they're looking for 'long-term side-effects.' A long-term side-effect here doesn't mean one that's latent for years before presenting, it's one that presents quickly (days, weeks) but causes lasting harm. So yeah they're looking for them but they're not primarily vaccinating people and then following them for 4-5 years to see if something miraculously goes wrong 3 years later. That's what VAERS is for.
> And while the technology has been around for 20 years, it certainly hasn't been trialed on humans until very recently, due to difficulty finding a safe delivery mechanism.
mRNA vaccines and adenoviral vector vaccines have been in development since the 1970s. Vaccines have been around since 1721. We know what kinds of effects to expect, and they're (a) overwhelmingly short term and (b) we know of no mechanism where latent effects might randomly appear 4-5 years later since we know these platforms don't alter DNA.
We know from having extensively characterized the platform over fifty years that if nothing happens within the first few months, nothing's going to happen.
So really the parent post is right. Development went fast because we (a) leveraged a platform we'd extensively characterized and knew a ton about (b) were able to show efficacy very quickly due to prevalence of the disease within the population (c) layered a bunch of steps.
[edit] They didn't exactly YOLO this and I think that's born out by the fact we have like 5 different vaccines developed over comparable timeframes, administered billions of times all with the absolute bare minimum of adverse effects and incredible efficacy. Frankly it beggars belief that lightning struck so many times and we just got lucky a few billion times over. Maybe we were careful, and maybe the system worked.
That's biology. It's not like we're dealing with robots with little timers in them here. They'd be "long term" side effects simply because they're so rare it'd take years to observe one. So, if you carefully watch a very large population, you'd find them sooner.
What about something like cancer? If you get diagnosed with some form of cancer tomorrow, it's probably not because some cell first mutated yesterday, right?
That would essentially be a "robot with a little timer". And it's just the only one a layman like myself can come up with off the cuff. I have to assume there are more.
Edit: I watched the video, and this guy is presumably much smarter than I am, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem very convincing.
He's basically just claiming what you said, that conditions that take an extended amount of time to manifest just dont exist. That in some portion of the population, those conditions will necessarily manifest quickly. The video doesnt explain why I should believe that other than saying something like "these things are possible, but very unlikely".
IDK if dude is smarter than you are, but he's a domain expert. He knows enough about the subject that it would likely take you something in the range of a decade of dedicated time, research, engagement, and experience to reach an equivalence. You're probably quite capable of this, if you decide to go down this path.
If you don't want to go down this path, though, know that it probably will just take that breadth of experience to develop the understanding and intuition necessary to be able to say and explain things on the subject with confidence.
You should believe it because you trust people like the one in the video when they tell you it's a good idea to clean your wounds to prevent infection. You vaguely understand this has something to do with germs, but you (probably) don't know all about the various actual diseases that cause open wound infections, their outcomes, their treatments, the history of research behind it, etc. It's an entire field of medicine, actually. Luckily for you, a lot of the important stuff can be condensed into a single important general-action for the populations: clean your wound with soap and water, then, cover it with a bandage.
So why do you trust domain experts when they tell you about first aid, and not what they tell you about hugely more complex subjects, such as vaccinations and drug trials?
Why the sudden skepticism now? During a pandemic, of all times? If this was a movie, the climax / resolution would be the development of a vaccine - thank god, the experts delivered us from this terror. What were you expecting instead? 10 years of lockdown while we wait for things to shake out?
NNT is certainly smart and is an expert, but what domain? Last time I checked it was mathematical risk modelling and options trading, not medical research. And the most robust modelling on a flawed premise is still flawed.
As sibling says, I vaguely know of the guy in the video as a math expert, not as some expert in a particularly relevant field of medicine.
But even so, I was expecting to watch the video and have it explain why I should believe x, and instead I found it just reiterating that I should believe x.
This is a little off topic for the thread (I was originally just responding to the claim that "Vaccines don’t have long term side effects"), but based on what you said:
Would you feel the same way about "you should clean your wounds to prevent infection" as you would with "you should inject this compound that we invented 1 (or 2 or 3) years ago?
Disclaimer: I think on the net it was sensible for young healthy people to take even Moderna as COVID can cause serious long term damage, but it wasn't costless and we aren't completely sure that it was a net benefit to the healthy young for them to vaccinate (this is ignoring the large effects from things like them infecting others or taking up healthcare resources).
Not worried about flu vaccines because they’ve been around forever. MRNA vaccines are relatively new and weren’t observed for long term side effects like other vaccines.
Johns Hopkins to me is part of the same machine making anyone who doesn’t get a vaccine an outcast. I would trust them about as much as the CCP regarding COVID’s origins.
Same - Mounjaro / Tirzeparide is nothing short of life changing.
A question I often get is "how effective is it?"
The SURMOUNT-1 study released in April 2022 showed 22.5% average reduction in weight for people on the highest dose of Mounjaro. For a 250 lbs person who should weigh 150 lbs (so 100 lbs of extra weight), this would result in them losing 56 lbs or 56% of their excess weight.
For context, bariatric surgery has the following success:
- Gastric Band: 35% - 45% of excess weight lost
- Gastric Sleeve: 60% - 75% of excess weight lost
The fact that a once a week injection is having results similar to bariatric surgery is insane, and this is only the early innings of this shift. Lilly has another drug in the works (will likely be released in late 2025) that is reporting better results than Mounjaro.
I wonder if somone studied „dragon breath” and „vacuuming” exercise vs surgery. I am 15 pounds overweight but I have a feeling that since doing these I look much better and don’t eat that much
Have the side effects stopped? Or have you only been on it 3 months? My wife has been on Ozempic for longer than three months and the side effects haven't stopped. The nausea is typically bad for a few days after taking each dose but some of the others linger most of the cycle. For some I can see that tradeoff being okay but I can't see non-obese, non-diabetic folks making that trade-off for longevity. I know I wouldn't.
Fat guy here: these side effects are pretty scary for somebody like me.
3 months of noticeably extra fatigue on top of my current baseline level of exhaustion seems to threaten serious psychological effects.
3 months of brain-fog sounds like a great way to get fired and really fuck up my life.
If my "gastro situation" was noticeably worse than the unpredictable wildy-swinging nightmare it already is, I honestly have no idea how bad the consequences could be for my social life (I would be the flakiest person anybody knows and everybody hates that guy) and ability to make plans / focus long enough to do any work.
For some reason, I don't know why but I've always been this way, there's nothing my body hates and wants to avoid more than throwing up. I dread it. I'm not so sure I enjoy life enough to get through 3 months of nausea.
Another fat guy here. I haven't taken any of these drugs, but I stopped eating processed food (or anything with added sugar), avoided late night snacks, and lost around 30 pounds in 8 months as a result. I had the fatigue and such early in the process, but it sorted itself out eventually. The most important thing I recognized was that if I avoided eating late at night, I didn't feel awful waking up in the morning. I'm embarrassed to say it took more than a year to change my behavior, despite my clear understanding of the harm of snacking all the time.
> I'm embarrassed to say it took more than a year to change my behavior, despite my clear understanding of the harm of snacking all the time.
You shouldn't be - this is the crux to why weight loss is so hard, and something I try to harp on any time I get.
Yes, just for reference, I was fat too once (more than 40lb above my ideal weight). I managed to lose the weight, just like parent, through small, sustainable lifestyle changes.
It's simple: eat less, move more.
But it's not easy. Start small, do things you can do do for the rest of your life.
> I'm embarrassed to say it took more than a year to change my behavior
That's nothing to be embarrassed about - I've taken decades to learn "easy" lessons". You should be proud you made the change and you can focus on the incredible results you have achieved!
I was quite overweight for 20 years, now I'm just a bit thicc on my way to a lean muscular physique. It feels good. The biggest factor was getting away from the wrong people and habits. I'm not a fan of artificial intervention because I believe I should be able to get my body in line. It takes time for your body to adjust to the absolute shit you did to it for decades. I always said in my head "this is payback for what I did to me for 20 years, how can I expect to just turn on a dime." There is a good chance I will be the sexiest 40 something for miles around (I live in the middle of nowhere, but still!) The best feeling is looking great in clothes. Finding well fitting stuff is now fun.
You can do it. If I can do it.
Be warned that people who know you from the other physique will mock you for taking care of yourself. Be glad they are mocking you, it means you did something right. I felt such a sting the first time, it was traumatizing. "Shouldn't you be happy for me?" Turns out the answer is "no".
Time it properly. Pick the end of the year around December when things are slow. That knocks off a month. Save the vacation time to knock off 2 weeks in January. White knuckle it through February.
Eating food and drinking alcohol is a core part of most social activities. When you're losing weight, you can't really fuck up, you really need to stick to your diet. I found it difficult to maintain my diet in social settings (going to a friends party, eating at a restaurant with friends, going to a bar to celebrate something, etc) so I just stopped doing all of those things for 8 months. Like, if you're trying to quit heroin you're not going to go hang out with your old heroin buddies all the time and you're not going to do go near the places that sell heroin. Now, imagine that instead of being addicted to heroin, you're addicted to food, and all of the places that sell heroin are all the places that sell candy or burgers or really anything nowadays, and all of your "heroin friends" are really just your normal friends who have healthy relationships with food. Its really difficult to get away from it. When you're addicted to food, the only real way to improve is to quit it cold turkey style and that means some serious lifestyle changes.
Thanks for the answer. In my own experience I went from eating out every day at work to packing a lunch and eating in the cafeteria. It didn’t mean less socialization at lunch but I did start eating with different people and I realize that is hard or not even an option for some. I set a rule for myself to only eat out once a week and that did the trick.
I also stopped going to a weekly bar event with friends and honestly haven’t talked to them nearly as much since then. Similar to eating out though I eventually replaced that with a watch party/game night/discussion club with a different new group of friends. Those events have drinks but not really as a focus.
I didn’t make all of these changes simultaneously though which reduced some of the challenge. None of it is easy though and I still feel bad for not keeping in touch with some folks I was previously close to.
It probably depends where you live and your social groups. In MT it seems that there are two main groups of people. Those who are into outdoor activities (healthier lifestyle) and your other group which is more adverse to the outdoors and prefer to socialize in Bars or at events. If you fall into the latter, it can be socially isolating if you want to lose weight or maintain a healthy eating habit.
That makes sense but it may also be that you just need to make different social circles. There are tons of casual sports teams, for example, and those people are all bonding over playing volleyball casually (not at a high level or something) or things like hiking. Now your social activities are helping you lose weight
Nope, lots of casual sports teams will have people say, "hey we couldn't really socialize during the game, let's go grab a beer afterwards?". Hiking is similar, "hey let's take a break and eat some lunch."
Then take up trad climbing or jiu-jitsu. Ok those aren't for everyone, but your tone is way too dismissive. There are many, many social groups that will naturally encourage better exercise and fitness, if folks are interested.
Everyone is addicted to food - what you're describing sounds like a great way to set yourself up for failure.
You can eat socially, you can have days you overeat and then fast the difference, etc. Pigeonholing yourself to super restrictive regimen - for what ? It's not like you have a deadline to lose the weight - and if your routine isn't easily sustainable you're just going to revert to old behavior as soon as something else starts taking your focus.
The only thing that matters with these things is trends and long term adherence.
> Everyone is addicted to food - what you're describing sounds like a great way to set yourself up for failure.
as someone who has to be reminded to eat by their significant other or family lest I fall ill, from a long-line of people with the same trait, no -- not everyone is addicted to food.
I enjoy food, I consume food, but it doesn't produce any level of compulsion like an addiction does.
I just plan for it and eat less before/after event. I also got used to just eating rarer so say skipping dinner coz there is some event in the evening isn't a big deal
OP commented on a weight-loss scheme of eating every other day. Given the social attitudes around eating (which I suspect to be the #1 most common social activity), this alone has the obvious potential to eliminate ~%50 of the most likely socializing opportunities.
I agree that eating every other day would be socially isolating but OP stated he ate every other day 7 years after his original bout of weight loss which he said he did, “the old fashioned way.”
If you're not eating every other day you can still go to the eating place and sit with folks. Also you can just talk more since they have to eat and you don't. Sounds like MORE socializing.
This is funny, so the more you talk, the more you are socialising, and if you are listening, you are not socialising?
Also since taunting yourself with food is not a concern, you assume your willpower and concentration is perfect, you never need safety precautions!
You can go work on high voltage cables 80 meters in the air without rubber gloves or safety harness - since you are more agile without gloves, and you save time by not needing to move around the carabiner, you will be more productive!
Don't wear a seatbelt, a helmet, remove airbags, sell your protective gear! Don't buy insurance! Remove safety from your gun! Store your bleach, poisons and fruit juice in identical containers! Leave sharp object lying around on the floor! Don't make spare copies of house keys!
Being the only person eating can feel weird, but if I'm one person among a group I don't feel strange not eating and I've never picked up that it was strange for anyone else. Sometimes I don't feel like eating, and I don't force myself.
> If you're not eating every other day you can still go to the eating place and sit with folks.
It sounds like you can't really sympathize because you haven't experienced this, but I can help you empathize if you're interested. Context, I've moved from between 16% and 30% bodyfat several times in the last 15 years, I've struggled with weight my whole life.
For some overweight people, like me, there's a high willpower cost to avoiding food that's present. A strategy for weightloss that's worked for me is to simply remove all snacks from the house, and when I order food, order an appetizer only, or, if I'm with someone, slide half my food onto their plate. If I have to, I'll try to eat half, and then right away ask the waiter to box up the rest or whatever.
Seems silly, right? Why not just take a look at my plate, make a rational evaluation of the calories there, and only eat until I hit within my calorie budget? I'm perfectly capable of making that calculation, I've been counting calories for a decade, I'm pretty darn accurate at this point. So why don't I just do that? Why don't I just work out every day? Why don't I just study my mandarin flashcards every day like I know I need to? Why don't I always put my clothes away as soon as I take them out of my dryer?
I don't have a catchall answer, all I know is that for whatever reason, some or all humans have gaps between their ideal self and their true self, and sometimes you gotta do silly tricks to jump those gaps. A silly trick that works for me is keeping food I shouldn't eat, out of site.
So TLDR when I'm hardcore dieting, going to an eating place with the intention of not eating is an extremely exhausting exercise. There's many opportunities for me to fail there, from when I sit down everyone's looking at the menu (maybe if I just get something small, maybe if I just eat half it's ok) through to when food and drinks come (well I can snack on some of the shared appetizer, that's no big deal). I will quite literally catch my eyes darting from whoever I'm conversing with to a plate of fries again and again. Every single time it happens I have to tell myself "no," with the full list of rational reasons why that "no" is more important than my impulsive desire borne from both hunger and just like, mouth boredom or whatever, to eat the fry.
So knowing that about myself, when I'm hardcore dieting, I just try to avoid setting myself up to fail like that, and thus, it's a socially isolating time. Especially when I lived in the USA and outside of like, rock climbing and motorcycling, there was basically no time people got together that didn't involve food, cause you had to drive or whatever and your hangout time would probably overlap with a meal or two.
Because if you want to lose quickly, and once you get the discipline to lose you do want it to be quick, you have to restrict your calories A LOT.
I'm not OP but when I was losing, as a 6"2 male, I was eating between 1200 and 1400 calories a day. This does not allow you to eat anything outside of small meals and drink anything outside of water or diet sodas.
I was still going sometimes to the restaurant with friends but my choice was limited to the unique salad on the menu (which you can't eat whole because it would be too much) and my drink would be a diet coke. Same when we were going to the bar, I would just have diet soda or water.
I was lucky that all of my friends were absolutely supportive and didn't mind at all, but it still limits you. Going to a night club without drinking is not fun at all for example.
I would love to know what sort of healthy cut has a 6"2 male eating that low a calorie count. That is approaching weight class athlete cutting numbers which is near uniformly considered very bad for you.
If he’s not exercising and is largely sedentary then 1400 calories for an adult male is a serious deficit, but not extreme. If he added in an hour of high intensity interval training or something that would be extreme and potentially hazardous.
The problem with severe caloric restriction is that your metabolism slows down. This isn't true of water fasting up to 4-5 days at a time where your metabolism increases ~10-15%, and your body produces significant quantities of HGH which help you burn fat while preserving muscle.
Severe caloric restriction diets are actually not particularly effective if your goal is to permanently lose significant quantities of weight and keep it off - once you plateau it really sucks. Of course I mean if you power through and keep at it you will, but IME, periodic fasting is a much easier way to lose weight and keep it off.
Not hazardous, really, as you point out. The whole point of stored fat is to be used.
Citations available on request, I have NCBI links for each of my points but it takes a while to dig up.
I've tried many things and I prefer intermittent fasting over diets and calorie counting. Changing diet a bit is still important (cutting carbs and focusing on stuff that keeps me satiated for longer), but it's easier to manage say going to event (just fast day before/after), or when having some bigger meal for whatever (socializing etc) reason I can always just eat later tomorrow.
Usually one big meal after noon and that's about it, plus occasional coffee or cup of cocoa. If I have event in the evening I just don't eat during the day or get a milky beverage to get me by, then depending on how much I ate I either delay dinner the next day or skip the next day altogether.
What's severe caloric restriction mean, here? From memory I've read that 750kcal and even 1000kcal under TDEE are effective. A TDEE of 2400kcal would be normal for a young 6'2" male who does a bit of light cardio, and 2150kcal wouldn't be unusual for someone who's sedentary.
Some studies, including one that followed The Biggest Loser contestants [1] showed that your basal metabolic rate goes down as much as 23% as a result of significant caloric restriction and remains lower for at least the 6 years of the study - even if the weight is regained. For these contestants the restriction was very significant, though I'm not sure if it's quantified in the study.
Here's another interesting one. Check out the Energy Expenditure section of [2].
> The gross BMR decreased in all the subjects during semistarvation, the average decline being 17.1% after 19 days (54) and 21.4% after 13 days (55). [3]
Based on this data, I would expect your BMR to go down by 20% over a period of three weeks, and remain there for the rest of your life were you to continue this for a while. So you'd have to, as an 'average' person, reduce intake by 500kcal to account for metabolic adaptation, then another 500kcal to lose 1lb per week.
That aligns with your suggestion that 750kcal-1000kcal reduction should show results for most people.
Someone who is 6'2" would need to weigh 195 lbs to be considered at all overweight. The BMR for a median 55 year old male is around 1800 calories, and thats for someone just marginally overweight.
Yeah, I don't weigh my food, so I am just making educated guesses. The only time I knew for certain how much I was eating was when I ate about 0 calories for an entire month - due to advanced gallbladder disease and a hilarious series of diagnostic missteps. I lost 20 pounds. Gained it all back almost immediately after my surgery.
This amount of calorie would be without taking into account any exercise. Then on top of that, if you exercise (I didn't), you would just eat back the calories you consume via exercising to not be at an unhealthy level.
Be overweight, bust out your healthy lunch at work. People will flat out tell you "Oh, it's so good you are trying to be healthy." So already you are being told that they thought you didn't care before and you have finally decided to make the "right" decision.
Slim people hear this in response to eating healthy food, too. In my experience, people are genuinely impressed/inspired to see healthy meals, or feel guilty about consuming junk they brought with them (so their comments are actually to themselves, small reminders that this is perhaps how they ought to be eating).
I was put on topomax for extreme migraines. Turned out a side effect was zero appetite.
Unfortunately another side effect was to lose of about 60 iq points.
Loved the weight loss. Missed having a brain.
Like staying up 30 hours. But not feeling tired. You can function. But higher concepts are not possible. A “for loop” was very challenging.
Also you make a lot of really stupid decisions.
Once I was hacking out of house and noticed garbage can needed put away. So I got out of car while driving away. Promptly got caught on seatbelt and got dragged away.
Stopped driving until I was off that Medication.
The alternate med. Diamox makes me sleepy. But otherwise Doesn’t make me dumb.
I know people that do great on topomax. But it has a reputation
How was the process with insurance? About a year ago I tried to get on semaglutide and my insurer shut down every option. It was extremely demoralizing.
> Losing weight was extremely challenging and socially isolating
This line alone tells me you're legit be a use nobody talks about this aspect of doing what needs to be done to lose that kind of weight.
From everything I've heard, I'd take this class of drug in a heartbeat if I thought I had any chance at all of getting a prescription. It is apparently a double edged sword that all of my health metrics peg me at above average health, except that I'm a bit overweight again after the COVID times.
I've done keto for three months and my body's ability to process fat has completely changed. I honestly think were never meant to eat as many carbs as we do in a day.
It sounds like a very similar symptoms except only for the first few weeks of Keto. Ketosis is where the body starts to use fats to produce its own sugars for the blood rather than relying on carbs to suppliment.
Anyway I'm off keto now and I find myself capable of burning fat simply by being more physical. It's really weird.
there's a difference between being full and feeling full. is it still known that the human body is healthy with this level of dieting and lack of nutrition?
clearly can't be the case for someone who is obese so I'm wondering if this is true then if it's limited to folks who are struggling with obesity that can endure this
> there's a difference between being full and feeling full.
Implying that something is off if you "feel" but are "not" full? How do you define full? Having a "healthy" amount of food in your stomach? However you define it, with asserting that, you have to acknowledge the closely related idea that there's something off if you are "full" (as you've defined it) but still not feeling full - or satiated. It's that broken state that so many of us are desperate to solve.
I'm on a GLP-1 agonist after years of diets, gym memberships, shame, etc. etc. and this medicine is nothing short of amazing for me. It feels like it has fixed things I didn't even realize were wrong and it has changed my relationship with food in very positive ways. It is now so much easier to eat - some food but not too much food - just like I've seen so many of my friends with healthy BMIs do forever and have always had to consciously fight to do, day in, day out.
But even more than that, it's changed my desire for alcohol and reduced my consumption patterns there as well. Moving is easier -- and that effect happened faster than weightless, suggesting a reduction in systemic inflammation as well.
The side effects were a little rough for the first two weeks, but after ~3 months on it, I'd happily be on this for life given the positive impacts I've seen, barring any unexpected/unseen side effects.
> Implying that something is off if you "feel" but are "not" full? How do you define full? Having a "healthy" amount of food in your stomach? However you define it, with asserting that, you have to acknowledge the closely related idea that there's something off if you are "full" (as you've defined it) but still not feeling full - or satiated. It's that broken state that so many of us are desperate to solve.
I call it "brain hunger" and "body hunger". Over time I learned to notice the difference.
Brain hunger is just brain going "heeey, your stomach is empty, I don't like it", or "we just did a bunch , it's evening, me want tasty food as reward", or "we haven't eaten that tasty thing for a while, give food now?". The "fuck off brain, you're not hungry, you're bored" state.
Body hunger is change in physiology, not just "tummy feeing empty", my hands and legs get colder and I feel a bit more awake and on edge. And, well, annoyed.
Having felt both “brain hunger/body hunger”
And “obesity hunger/glp1 hunger” they are very different. The glp1 drugs remove a compulsion to eat that many thin people just don’t have. It’s like being a smoker, and then nearly instantly no longer craving cigarettes and finding the smell of ciagrettes unappealing. It’s not a remotely subtle change at all.
So it works by reducing hunger? Bit obvious if you eat less than 1kcal per day you will lose weight.
The article mentions "along with some lifestyle changes". Is what they mean?
Every animal will engorge itself given the chance. All that is happening is the great abundance of cheap food and less activity. Thats it - except maybe for a tiny minority with metabolism / hormone issues.
> Every animal will engorge itself given the chance.
Not every animal. Mice given semaglutide don't gorge when presented with food to feed on freely, to the point where their weight drops >10% compared to control after a month.
Erm, the intented permanent physical change for the user is establishing normal weight, at which point you would assume, that you can establish healthy routines and ideally move on without the drug.
But the drug is designed (intentionally or not) in a way, that makes this very hard, keeping the user dependant on it. So I would call this a bug, but I can see people still choosing it over the alternative.
"cause the body to create lots of new adipocyte (fat cells). Increasing the number of adipocytes is very unusual after puberty. As long as you are taking the GLP-1 inhibitor drugs you will lose or maintain weight, but as soon as you stop you will gain a lot of weight back."
But the source seems to be a bit tainted, so I am not sure if any of this is really true.
I think the main problem aside from the side effects you listed is the fact that frequent injections sounds really inconvienent, and the cost is pretty prehibitive unless insurance is covering it.
If you're getting a ~20% weight loss in 6 months, the cost is a steal compared to the alternatives.
I don't think this is the most interesting or curious discussion we can be having about these drugs --- the science story is much more interesting and relevant than HN's general opinions about "big pharma" or the obesity epidemic, and the science story stays interesting even if you think the drugs are not a net good --- but of the non-science discussions we can be having, the pricing seems like the least interesting thing happening here. These are injections whose competition is major surgery.
I'm taking saxenda, which requires a daily injection and it's totally fine. It takes like 2 minutes. The needle is tiny and most of the time you barely feel it.
How's it working for you? It's the one that's available where I live, but the reviews I've read of it have me thinking I'd be better off waiting until the newer versions come out?
I've found it super helpful. I've lost 30 lbs so far. I counting calories, but the drug makes it much easier because you're just less hungry. I didn't have any major side effects, but some people do. I plan to switch to Wegovy once it's available, though.
Maintaining a healthy weight is not that difficult FOR YOU. Many, many people struggle to control their weight. One day you might too.
I never had an issue with my weight until I had a thyroid infection around 30. I now have "normal" thyroid levels, but ever since then maintaining my weight take vigilance and lots of discipline. It's possible, but definitely "difficult".
I had a similar issue. I was over the weight I wanted to be, but not amazingly so. Then I had a thyroid issue, and I lost a bunch of weight; down to my target weight. Then, once the thyroid issue was treated, my weight rebounded well past it's starting point. I'm still trying to lose the extra weight.
That sucks. Best of luck. FWIW I have managed to get my weight under control, so hopefully it's possible for you too. But yeah, if it's anything like it is for me, it really is a challenge, just know your not alone.
I frequently wish I had measure of what my levels were before my thyroid went weird. "Normal" is a pretty wide range, it'd be nice to know how my currently levels compare to my previous "normal" even if just to confirm that something physically changed.
Have you ever tried to deliberately eat fewer calories every day than your body wants, for an extended period of time? Like, months and years, not days.
yes i intentionally eat healthy. I used to get breakfast smoothies and large portion breakfast and lunches. i put on weight, i cut that out and started to lose weight. i had butter with breakfast everymorning. atleast 100 calories, i noticed that was a mistake and cut it out. that isnt calories i need.
Your body wants about 1800-2200 calories. it doesnt need chips and soda and chocolate etc.. which push you above that
Your body wants your maintenance calories. If you are overweight for an any significant time, your body adjusts and will push you to consume your new maintenance calories. It takes a very long time for you body to adjust back down once you lose weight, which is why more often than not people gain the weight back.
What are you saying that based on? Your going to feel full and not get fat if you binge on brocolli. Not the same as reaching for snickers. If you reach for something healthy everytime your hungry instead of something sweet or extra fatty you'll lose weight. if you lose to much weight you'll feel bad. The way i understand what your saying is If you cut out 500 calories of sugary snacks and soda your going to crave 500 calories of turkey. I think thats false, thats based on my experience.
There's a whole contingent of ignorant (but smug, of course) people who like to chant "just eat less" as if that simple biological truth is the easy answer. How nice it must be for them.
what are you sharing your personal anecdotes then as something conclusive about weight management. we know nothing about you except take your word that you eat healthy?
What would knowing my number change? If I say a number it becomes "just" eat less. With that just doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Just eat less may be easy for some people. It's extremely difficult for others. I shared my anecdote to point out that even within ones life it can change. It was not an invitation scrutinize my life. Too many people think the phrase "I have a hard time losing weight" is a justification to start quizzing people down about their habits and judging them. Fuck that.
Yeah if your eating 3k calories a day as an average height person it does invalidate what your saying. If your eating 1800 to 2k calories a day and still are obese then id consider what your saying. alot of people make poor food choices and dont eat clean. meals are filled with fats and sugar or they snack all day and dont just drink water
1) It really wouldn't invalidate anything. For some people eating less than 3k calories means being hungry all the time and that's really, really difficult for them. They'd lose weight, they'd be healthier, but that doesn't make it "easy".
2) You keep calling my obese, you clearly aren't considering what I'm saying right now, I doubt suddenly knowing my caloric intake would change that.
Eat 1lb of celery, you'll still be hungry after that? I doubt you'll get through it. That's 100 calories. If your hungry and eating alot your not eating filling food and there are to many calories in it. Fats and sugar and calorie dense. You can eat way to much and feel like you didn't eat enough. If your eating 3k calories and still hungry I don't think you're really trying.
I didn't call you obese, that's not how I was using "you"
When I asked what difference my caloric intake would make you responded:
> Yeah if your eating 3k calories a day as an average height person it does invalidate what your saying. If your eating 1800 to 2k calories a day and still are obese then id consider what your saying.
So I guess that was just a complete non-sequitur?
I'm not going to try eating 1lb of anything for obvious reasons, but I can tell you from experience if I fill up on greens I'll be hungry again in an hour. And I don't really care for greens. Constantly snacking on food I don't enjoy doesn't meet my definition of "easy". In fact it'd take a lot of discipline (wait isn't that what I said about maintaining my weight at the beginning?), and would be quite difficult. I believe it works for you though, because, surprise surprise, different people are different and have different experiences in life.
Idk how you can sit here and talk about struggling to manage your weight then say you dont like eating vegetables. start eating real food. stop snacking all day.
the real issue is you just want to eat foods that taste good all the time.
I never said I snacked all day. I said if I was going to get my calories from greens I'd need to in order not to be hungry. Once again not actually considering what I'm saying. Your just making whatever assumption if convenient to your worldview.
Less cognitive load...
every meal -> "will the extra serving of chicken push me over my limit?"
versus
"it's tuesday, no food today."
"it's wednesday. Dinner time."
I get extreme brain fog after about 16 hours of no calories, reducing overall cognitive ability more than planning out two days of food compared to just one
I was personally capable of tracking 100% of my caloric input and output to manage to a target weight. I lost 25% of body weight and kept it off for a long time (years).
However, now that I have a full-time job and am also primary caretaker for two young children under age 5 with minimal childcare, I have been unable to maintain the weight loss and I'm fairly close to lifetime maximum weight (at -5% right now).
I notice behaviors like eating snacks between meals (often high-calorie), eating the kids' leftover food when I clean it up, not tracking my calorie inputs, eating at meals until I'm full (which tends to lead to lifetime maximum weight quickly in my experience), and eating extra food at night after the kids go to bed. This all adds up fast.
A couple of years ago I read the literature about GLP-1 agonists and started thinking about drugs. The last time I asked, a couple years ago, my GP said she had never successfully gotten an Rx approved for GLP-1 agonists in a patient with obesity. I was also thinking about looking into cognitive behavioral therapy as this all feels like it's behavioral?
In general I prefer low-intervention approaches to medicine. I'd definitely rather rely on diet + exercise alone for weight loss. However, I just don't have the time in the day to lose enough weight - mechanically it just isn't working. It's frustrating because it used to. I'm pretty close to looking into the drugs again.
This discounts cognitive process and the factors that influence it.
You can make the same argument for infidelity - just don't cheat on your spouse. Yet, infidelity is an incredibly complex issue that stems from multiple biological and social variables.
I'm not a big fan of taking drugs to treat weight. You could also treat infidelity with hormone treatments that remove all of your sex drive - but that's like putting out a fire with a bomb.
Much like with infidelity, I believe it's better to address the underlying reasons for weight gain and treat those, but we shouldn't be under any misconception that it's an easy problem.
I would rather die young than deal with those side effects. And those of us who are competitive endurance athletes need the oxidative stress; it's not necessarily a bad thing depending on timing and volume. Plus we will probably find other harmful side effects after long term use. There is no free lunch when you mess around with basic metabolism; everything has a price (not just in money).
You would rather die than suffer through three months of occasional strong nausea, constipation and brainfog? I hope that's hyperbole or that you have someone to talk to.
I'm willing to bet that there are some other long-term side effects that haven't even been detected yet. Since I'm not obese I'll let others take the risk.
First off, no, not everyone should be on these drugs, there are side effects as well as known drug interactions that can be dangerous and not everyone needs them.
Second, please, please, please stop listing your BMI as if it were a definitive measure of health. To begin with it doesn't correlate well with actual percentage body fat because it doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle. Second, the study which created the BMI was based on a population sample from a single town and all participants were within 4 inches of each other in height, and nearly all were effectively average height with similar lean body masses. If your lean body mass does not conform to the expected range from that study, BMI cannot accurately determine if you are obese, skinny, a body builder or just tall/short.
Finally, rapid weightloss is dangerous, and if you're eating fewer than 1k calories in a day while experiencing extreme fatigue and brain fog, you are more likely to be losing significant muscle mass than fat. This is may be extremely because your heart could be weakened, which could kill you. It's great that your cholesterol and overall weight is down, it's terrifying that you're eating so few calories while being unable to maintain enough physical activity to keep your body from canabilizing vital muscle tissues.
> In the past, scientists and the public often thought that those with obesity simply lacked the willpower to lose weight. But evidence is growing that most people’s bodies have a natural size that can be hard to change.
In the context where we have gone from obesity rates of 13 percent to 40, to suggest that people have a natural weight and that's the cause of this seems absurd to me.
The term "natural weight" as used here is misleading. It does not mean that people are supposed to be a particular weight. It refers to the idea that something—whether it's diet, genetics, environmental factors, or something else—influences the body's weight regulation mechanisms to "prefer" a certain body weight, and changing that is very, very hard.
Think of it like body temperature: normally, your body maintains a certain core temperature, and it will respond in a negative feedback loop when the temperature deviates from that set point. Conditions like infections can induce where your body raises that set point to fight the infection, and it takes time for that set point to come back down.
Something similar appears to happen with people's weight. Hormonal or other changes cause the body to gain weight, and once that happens, it resists losing weight in various ways: increasing appetite, changes to basal metabolic rate, changes to metabolic pathways involved in breaking down nutrients from food, all sorts of things. Deviously, fat cells actually produce hormones that play into these changes, which is one of many reasons why losing weight is usually harder than gaining it. And when people do manage to lose weight, often after a huge exertion of effort and willpower and major lifestyle changes, their set point may not have changed, and so as soon as they slip up even a little bit, they quickly regain back to their set point.
So they're not suggesting that there's some mystical force out there that decides some percentage of the population should be overweight. They're referring to the idea of a set point for body weight that is difficult to change without drugs or bariatric surgery.
If this were true I would not expect that changes in our lifestyle would cause broad scale weight increases like they have. I'm very skeptical humans are built with an average set weight way up in the unhealthy range.
Or maybe this is the case, but it is thrown off hard by our modern diets. Our natural set point is in the healthy range, but our meal is x calories per Y food now so it ends up artificially high.
The explanation just doesn't line up with what we've seen. I get that it's hard to lose weight once you've gained it, but that's different. This is absolving us of being responsible for our obesity as a whole.
I think you're misunderstanding. There is no "natural set point." The set point moves up and down based on hormones, genes, diet, environment, medication, etc. And the very act of gaining weight causes your body's set point to move up, because of how weight gain affects your hormones. Unfortunately the set point is pretty sticky, and once it moves up, it does not like to move back down, in part because for most of animal history, weight loss is a sign of starvation.
Today, there are a bunch of factors that have combined to move people's set points higher than they should be: calorie-dense diets, sedentary lifestyles, plastics, drugs like antidepressants and lithium compounds in the water supply, and who knows what else. No one is arguing that the "natural" set point is 300 pounds or whatever. The point is that there is no natural set point because it's a function of many different variables.
What is a set point not influenced by? The way you framed it, it seems to take everything into account. In that case, why wouldn't "your current weight" not just be your set point?
He didn’t explain the concept of a set point very well.
Your body’s set point is a weight that it wants to go back to. The set point can change, but not without great effort. Small efforts will simply result in temporary weight gain/loss and eventual reversion to the set point weight. Great efforts (long term changes in diet and lifestyle, not just a 7 day juice fast) are required to re-set your set point higher or lower.
Think of a hamster crawling up a giant mixing bowl or something, set on a particular spot on the kitchen floor. The hamster can walk forwards up the side of the bowl, but the bowl has not moved and since the sides of the bowl are very steep, the hamster will slide back down to the middle of the bowl where he started. If he wants to get to a different part of the kitchen, he will have to really slam his body against the side of the bowl, or work hard in a different way, to “nudge” the whole bowl across the floor so it’s now sitting at a different “set point”
> And the very act of gaining weight causes your body's set point to move up, because of how weight gain affects your hormones. Unfortunately the set point is pretty sticky, and once it moves up, it does not like to move back down, in part because for most of animal history, weight loss is a sign of starvation.
Kind of, but increasing doesn't go indefinitely either. People have multiple "set points", not one moveable one, long known among people intentionally increasing their weight as "plateaus".
Yes. I think the dominant theory is that it has something to do with gut microbiomes, and in particular sugar and/or artificial sweeteners screw it up pretty badly.
It would seem really odd to me if it was just one aspect of modern lifestyle and diet. I would be shocked if both proliferation of cheap highly processed and hyperpalatable food and declining activity rates/greatly increased in screen time didn't both play a major role.
I'm actually thinking about going serious about healing the gut microbiomes. The sugar part is the most difficult. It's very easy to eat food that helps and consume probiotics, but a life without sugar...Jesus I'd rather die.
Somehow I became a sugar person from a meat person after I immigrated to Canada. Not sure what the cause was though.
I struggle with sugar cravings too. Controls that work for me are intermittent fasting, eating more fruit after meals, and most importantly, just not having sugary things around the house. The sugar cravings pass after a couple of weeks, but only take a day or two after having sugary to start again.
Usually the stomach begins to complain. It has a certain burning feeling. I usually stop after that. I don't get that far usually because the mouth usually complaints before the stomach -- I got really acid smell in mouth when I eat too many cookies.
That is a theory, and I think most researchers agree that it's a factor, but I don't think most researchers would say it's primarily to do with the gut microbiome.
"The term "natural weight" as used here is misleading."
It just means that bodies have a set point that they'll defend. And that weight changes. If you get fat, no matter how you do it, your body will defend that weight and if you lose will take action, increase hunger, reduce metabolism, etc. making it near impossible to keep it off even if you lose it.
> to suggest that people have a natural weight and that's the cause of this seems absurd to me
People do have a natural weight, and a fraction of people are genetically predisposed to be overweight regardless of lifestyle. But what I find impossible to accept is that somehow that number has mushroomed in the past half-century and particularly in the U.S.
I've lived and/or worked on every continent over the past 40 years, and nowhere have I seen the degree of obesity that is commonplace in the U.S. (I have not been to the Pacific Islands--I know they have the highest obesity rates there for reasons I haven't researched, but they're also a very small population). Anecdotes aside, the obesite rate in the US is nearly twice as high as some European countries (and not because people in those countries are malnourished).
It's pretty clearly the food. Living in other countries I never had to worry about weight, but as soon as I moved to the U.S. I started gaining weight right away even though I eat quite healthy. It's just very very hard to escape processed foods in the U.S. unless you 1) have money to buy more expensive food, and 2) are very conscious about it and make considerably effort to stick to fresh fruits, veggies, rice, fish, etc., no fast food, sodas, packaged foods, etc. etc.
It's also well documented that obesity is correlated with income, and it's not hard to see why, when the grocery options in low-income areas have very little healthy, minimally-processed food. Nutritional inequality is a huge issue and there's very little action taken about it. Just think about how cheap and easy it is to get unlimited refills of soda -- with a soda fountain nearly everywhere you go, compared to eating fresh food. Many people have neither the time nor money to eat healthy, and despite "be healthy" slogans, etc., nearly everything around us conspires against eating healthy (unless you have lots of $).
I'm happy that obesity-reduction pills are coming on the market because some people are naturally predisposed to gaining weight and will be helped greatly by the pills. But what I hope doesn't happen (but already see happening) is that being used to paper-over this huge problem of nutritional inequality that is the root cause of much (though not all) of the obesity in the U.S. at least.
I have also noticed myself and my partner gain weight when we live in the US. I'll make it a little more concerning: I mostly don't eat processed foods. I buy the raw ingredients and cook myself.
Do you often cook with ingredients like canned beans or canned diced tomatoes or premade stock? Do you buy any kind of grocery store bread, including the "fresh" stuff from the bakery section? All of these things usually contain added sugar in the US, sometimes in shockingly huge amounts. I think people from other countries don't know to look out for sugar in these kinds of processed but not ultra-processed food items because such things don't usually contain sugar (because it's totally unnecessary). So even if you're mostly cooking with raw ingredients you could be getting way more sugar in your diet than you did wherever you lived before.
Nope. I never buy anything without reading ingredients and yes the US is really bad about adding sugar to stuff. Even some meat which is absurd.
But when I say I cook from scratch I mean it. If I want beans I buy a bag of dried beans. I will sometimes buy canned Marzano tomatoes from Italy, ingredients: tomatoes.
Hmm...must be something else in the environment then. I lost weight effortlessly while living in Europe but I always assumed that was due to being cut off from processed foods and food items with unnecessary additives. It's nearly impossible for me to maintain an equally healthy diet here in the US because it's simply too annoying and it's also much easier to give into the temptation to eat junk food. I'm too lazy for things like dried beans though, I always prefer canned (as long as I can get the ones that are just beans, water and salt).
I don't usually plan what I'm cooking that far in advance so it's not practical for me personally and there's really not much difference between dried beans and canned unless you're buying the ones with sugar or you have a medical reason to avoid sodium
The other big difference between the USA (and Canada) and other places in the world is the built environment. NA does have a scattered few walkable cities, but there's a great many places where it's effectively impossible by design to go about the tasks of ones day fueled only by person power and not by getting in a car. This has implications on the amount of calories people are burning every day.
Excellent point. I didn't even own a car before moving to the US 5 years ago (even after having kids). I commuted to work by a combination of bike / subway, walked kids to school, and walked or biked to local errands. Denser layouts meant most things we needed were within walking distance or a few subway or bus stops away. And if we wanted to get out of the city on the weekend we'd rent a car.
The implication is that something has happened during the last 50-100 years that caused people's "natural weight" to change upward. (Someone's "natural weight" is normally called their "set point".)
The evidence is a little slim (no pun), but there's one theory which I find quite compelling. The theory is that eating foods with high flavor-calorie association increases your set point, and eating foods with low flavor-calorie association decreases your set point.
Flavor-calorie association is when your body knows that a particular flavor results in getting lots of calories in the near future. The flavor-calorie association will be higher for foods that are more flavorful or more calorically dense, and flavor-calorie associations can only be developed for foods you eat regularly. This explains why I lose a bit of weight whenever I go somewhere new – I'm trying new foods, so what I'm eating has doesn't have any flavor-calorie association, so my body's set point goes down, so I get full more quickly, causing me to eat fewer calories overall, causing me to lose weight. And since foods have gotten much more flavorful and calorically dense in the past half-century, it would explain why people's set points have gone up.
There's a simple way to test this theory at home. Extra-light olive oil (not extra-virgin) is tasteless and textureless. So, find a 2-hour window of your day when you don't taste anything with flavor, and have two tablespoons of extra-light olive oil right in the middle of that window. Since the oil has no flavor, it should have no flavor-calorie association, and your set point should go down. I've been doing this, and I've been getting full faster and that's been causing me to lose weight. (If you want to google more info, it's called the shangri-la diet.)
(Note that if you try this, your toothpaste probably counts as a flavor.)
Haven't heard anyone talk about the Shangri-La diet in ages. I did a slight variation of this for awhile way back in my 30s at it worked great. Recently testing this out with OMAD but haven't been doing it long enough to see if it is workable. I'm in my 50s now and a lot of things that worked wonders in my 30s do not work as well as they once did.
I'm going to try this because I recently fell off the OMAD wagon, and it usually takes me 3 solid days of white-knuckling it to get back to it feeling natural without wanting to eat during the day. Wondering if some plain celery or olive oil can ease the transition.
I'm going to try it with my omad diet because I only remember to take my supplements if I do it in the morning, but some are fat soluble, and the zinc can cause nausea on occasion, but if I get any carbs in the morning I get hungry. Some mct oil or light olive oil seems perfect. The toothpaste thing seems problematic. There are some bland ones, maybe I'll switch.
Since plain celery has very few calories, I doubt it would help much. It seems to me that you're really fooling your body somehow when you're feeding it calories with no flavor.
I'd be sooner to suspect environmental contaminants (changing types of air pollution, microplastics, pesticides on food, stress hormones in factory-farmed meat, et al) as a cause.
Although I suspect there's something to your hypothesis as well. I don't know about a spoonful of oil, but I have gone through phases where food seems less "rewarding" on a physiological level, and as a result I feel more satisfied with less.
Air pollution seems unlikely as it's been falling for decades, and America has much lower levels than Europe. Microplastics are a perennial boogey man, and probably a genuine ecological issue, but there has no been mountains of studies done and documented health effects are virtually non-existent. Livestock and slaughterhouse conditions are certainly not good from an animal welfare perspective, but we've had similar practices for 100+ years and obesity wasn't a major issue in 1960. Pesticides in food products have been substantially reduced since the EPA changed guidelines in the 1990s, and yet obesity has exploded since then.
PFAS chemicals are a likely culprit, their presence increased dramatically as obesity rates took off and they are stubbornly persistent in the water and food supply.
Absolutely agree.
Unironically through the first few paragraphs I though this was some very cleverly put satirical take on modern society.
There is a great book about the effects of modern food, primarily on dental health, written back in the 30s - Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price. Even though it's almost a century old, the findings are quite fascinating and can be extrapolated to present day.
It's quite undeniable that modern life has drawbacks and obesity is just a symptom.
I think it would be most accurate to say that people's bodies have a natural size given a particular food and social environment. That's a crucial bit of context that's very often neglected. Resisting one's environment is very difficult - it often requires you to have money, time, medicine, workout obsessed friends, or all of the above. Given changes in the environment in western countries over the last 50 years or so, weights are rising to their new "natural" levels as a consequence.
> It's quite undeniable that modern life has drawbacks and obesity is just a symptom.
Yea, people tend to forget pre-green revolution people going hungry for longer periods of time and mass starvation were really common. We made a trade, between the sudden and terrible outcome of starving and hunger to one of long term consequences like obesity and disease.
That sounds to me like a false equivalence. The cause of obesity is not that food is plentiful because different rich countries have different obesity rates. There is something else driving this issue and, in my opinion, is the prevalence of processed foods and use of highly processed seed oils.
It’s probably a combination of factors, but look at the rate of change of obesity rates. Obesity rates have been going up almost everywhere. Essentially the rest of the world has been catching up to America. America was the first country where food was so abundant that it was essentially limitless for the majority of the population.
Perhaps the effect of limitless food on obesity rates takes time to manifest and is compounded in successive generations.
Obesity is 100% caused by food is plentiful, with a catch....
There has to be excess calories in the first place, much like there must be oxygen for there to be a fire (don't you try to get florine involved in this).
Humans eating behavior seems to be driven by the first few years of our lives. If you eat like garbage as a kid, it follows you into adulthood. The US was (somewhat, there are still plenty of other even fatter countries) first with the TV to counter advertising that taught us that Trix was part of a balanced breakfast and that we should carry a coke wherever we go.
Other countries likely had confounding factors that slowed the excess calorie uptake. For example common traditional meals that were only replaced slowly. Other things that can tip the scale are things like higher walkability in their cities.(for example higher walkability in the US correlates with lower body mass).
But as stated, those confounding factors only slowed the fattening, it didn't stop it and the EU now is growing in weight just like the US did in the past.
We've gone quite far beyond never starving, we're eating far more than the required amount. Just a simple consequence of it being cheap and easy to make good tasting food by dumping sugar into literally everything. And the results are predictable.
I would counter you're incorrect, we're only 2 to 3 generations (maybe 4 now that I'm getting old) past never starving. On an evolutionary timescale this is nothing when talking about an impulse hundreds of millions of years old.
Our bodies never developed any means to prevent eating more than we needed other than "Oh $deity my belly hurts" and "Hmm, I better save some of this for tomorrow because food could run out then instead".
That's also completely true. I meant far beyond more in average lifetime caloric amount than evolutionary time spent doing it. We're definitely not adapted to any of this.
Is it true there are plenty of places in the world that don't have an epidemic of obesity?
My belief is Japan doesn't have as much of an obesity problem.
Sure, I'd love a drug that lets me eat more calories and not get fat but I'd also love it if we some how managed to stop eating so many cookies, donuts, potato-chips, sugary sodas, giant portion meals, etc.... I'd also love it if we designed more areas to be walkable and bikeable.
I lived ~15 years in Japan. I never missed owning car because the country is designed not to need a car. I also spent a year in Europe and Singapore and again, never missed owning car for the same reasons.
Let me also add that in Japan, at least in big cities like Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, you are almost always 1-2 minutes away from junk food. You can walk to a convenience store and find whole aisles of pastries, chips, ice cream, candies, etc and yet somehow the Japanese manage not to pig out.
Similarly there are bakeries all over full of donuts, etc...
Somethings that help are the portions are often smaller. Certainly for potato chips most bags in Japan are 1/3th the size of the average bag in the USA. Similarly cookies are small and come in small portions vs the USA where pretty much any supermarket sells cookies in packages of 20 to 40 cookies and each cookie is giant 300-500 calories each.
I guess this is one of those, we're not going to get people to stop eating too much so we have to find another solution? I can just imagine once I get this drug I'll start eating more because I can and companies will ramp up the portion sizes even more.... TACO TIME!!!!!
It's just terrible reporting, and equivocation. It being a lifestyle problem and having a natural weight can both be true. People have a natural weight, and it's difficult to drop below it. No one's natural weight is to morbidly obese.
These people are taking a medical finding and blowing it wildly out of proportion to support their agenda. It's an unfortunately common tactic.
I don't quite think it's entirely fair to blame on willpower in modern western society though. We have a food supply that is unnaturally calorie dense, and optimized for hyper strong flavor, shelf stability, and profit, and rarely for health. We're also much more sedentary.
IMO it's purely a question of perspective. From the point of view of individual health, you need to think like a doctor. The important question is "what can this individual do to improve their health?" From that perspective it's a "lifestyle" problem, as you put it. The individual has a food supply that is unnaturally calorie dense and unhealthy. To lose weight and improve their health the individual must make an effort to shift that; for some it might be impossible. For others it might be possible with a great deal of effort or with drugs.
From the point of view of public healthy, you need to think like a public health expert. From this perspective it makes perfect sense to talk about "natural weights" as something that can change (and has risen) over time. The calorie dense food environment and sedentary lifestyles are things that exist in the background here. Given these background facts, the weights of the great majority of people (who don't have the time, means, willpower, etc to resist) are going to rise to a new higher "natural" point. For some, foods will be so calorie dense and provide so little nutrition or satiety that they experience runaway obesity. These are just predictable downstream effects of the environment, and so the perspective of the public health expert is that individuals aren't to be blamed and you have to fix the environment. Ban soda in public schools, etc etc.
Highly palatable caloric dense food means that people are more incline to gain weight without even trying. 100+ years ago you had to make a more an effort to overeat.
Hunger is like a one way valve - you can gain weight and your body will not stop you, but as soon as you start to incur caloric deficit, your body will turn on lots of alarm bells.
Hunger is also impossible to compare, as it is an internal sensation.
Response to hunger is trained, but it is extremely hard to retrain.
That two people eating the same thing in the same amounts will retain different amounts as weight is something you can experiment on, without assigning a cause.
I think we need to really stress here just how bad our situation is. We have an obesity rate of 40 plus percent.
Peoples weight just cannot be said to be a "natural number" in this environment. Something is causing this and your average person is obese because of it, not because of their "natural weight"
It's both, the difference between ourselves and our grandparents is almost all environment. The difference between 2 high school students in 2023 Susy and Bob is driven almost completely by genetics.
There are two problems. One is that some people have a body that drives then incredibly strongly towards a certain size. The other is they there are people that given the opportunity to eat whatever they want whenever they want will slowly gain weight year after year. Gaining 3-4 pounds in a year isn't a problem and a sign that someone has a poor lifestyle. But over 2 or 3 decades, that becomes a serious problem.
The environment and our food sources have radically changed in the past hundred years. My grandparents ate a mostly organic diet because that's all that was available back then. They didn't eat food made in a factory. They didn't drink water filled with plastic microparticules. Their work was manual labor. I could easily continue with other environmental factors that are different.
What seems absurd to me is to jump to conclusions instead of taking a scientific approach to eliminating factors until we find causation.
Prior to the 20th century, it was pretty routine for average people to have inadequate access to nutrition. The rise in obesity corresponded with sweeping changed in agricultural policy that backstopped the prices of staple foods with subsidies and improved land and water management to prevent dust bowls. The result is everybody has enough food available cheaply all the time. Rolling any of that back is likely to replace obesity with malnutrition which is a much worse problem. Pandemic years notwithstanding, life expectancy has increased almost hand-in-hand with obesity rates. Obviously that's correlation, not causation.
> Rolling any of that back is likely to replace obesity with malnutrition
Based on what evidence? There are plenty of countries where people are not suffering from malnutrition and yet obesity rates are low compared to the U.S.
Obesity has increased uniformly across the US and much of the world. But in the US is fairly strongly, negatively correlated with income. And the obvious culprit here is thus processed and cheap food. Now, exactly how that manifests is probably quite complex. I see everyone offering their pet theory and that tends to muddy the waters but the basic outline seems reasonably clear.
Even your link ends with "Cheap Food, Unhealthy Food" and doesn't claim a refutation. It's' plausible higher income men aren't as concerned about healthy food as higher income women.
The claims I quoted were all facts. The article ends with a lot of interpretation of those facts that seem to be based on a lot of the authors priors and not at all based on good data.
For me it's 80KG. Once it goes over 80KG I would gradually feel all kinds of bad things so I'll start to lose weight, but then it's so easy to get back. I don't really think willpower helps here. I mean unless I can do it for the whole life, it will bounce back quickly.
I've heard this referred to as body "set points", and I've yet to see anything very convincing that set points are a thing. It doesn't really make sense that the body would "prefer" a body weight that is tremendously inefficient and contraindicated. More likely, in my opinion, what may be seen as a "set point" may be more akin to metabolic damage that simply takes time to heal once the pathology is actually being properly addressed.
Also, people simply can't be trusted when it comes to self-reporting of their own regimen. Whether it's not being honest with one's self, or being embarrassed, ill informed, or plain delusional, lots of people will report that they've done "all the right things" to lose weight when they in fact have not. It's far more common that people suffering from obesity remain fat because they are thwarting their own progress, or are being given shitty advice from crackpot dieticians, and less common that there is some chronic hormonal condition that can't be corrected by diet. If your pancreas is still working, as well as your thyroid, your pituitary, your hypothalamus, etc., you probably can correct your obesity without drugs.
But people want the "pill" or the "shot", even though the chances are really good that they could get most of the work done cutting out exogenous sugar and alcohol. And I can't necessarily blame them because I obesity drugs can be a life changing thing for those stuck in the 300+ lbs range. What worries me about these kind of drugs is if people think it's okay to get fat and prediabetic because they can just get a prescription. I guess that's great if they can, but that also seems like a form of low level megalomania of sorts, and results in one fewer thing for people to take personal responsibility over. It's good for the mind to put effort and work into something. It infantilizes the mind to allow it to not have to put rigor into anything.
The threshold for "obese" and all such labels has changed over the years, in such a way that makes it seem like people are fatter, when in fact the labels have changed.
It doesn't only seem as if people are fatter. Compare the weight statistics, or just look at pictures from the 1980s. That link is pure self-deception.
> In the context where we have gone from obesity rates of 13 percent to 40, to suggest that people have a natural weight and that's the cause of this seems absurd to me.
It annoys me too! Human genes haven't changed radically over the last 100 years. We're not dogs or cats where generations can be measured in a year if not months, we're talking roughly 30 years between generations, so no, it's not "genes" or "set point". The answer is obvious for anyone paying even a passing interest to history: we largely went from an agrarian society to a sedentary one, eating more and moving less. It's that simple. Combine this with capitalism pushing the fast food industry to make profits at any externalized cost, and the results are obvious.
As an aside, it always amuses me how people talk about "set point" but never address that it only goes up. If "set point" is a thing, you'd think there would be some people with a lower one, or at a minimum it wouldn't go up (hence it being set), but no one likes to admit that . . .
I know I'll get downvoted to hell for this but I could have absolutely nailed a quiz of "who is going to get really fat after high school." Nobody that I would have defined as a "hard worker" has gotten fat.
That viewpoint has a strong attraction for people who's natural weight is low, because they get to see themselves as strong willed and morally superior.
I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying the reason people don't do it is because they don't have the willpower. Yes, it is possible to choose to starve yourself, just requires a ton of willpower.
Starving yourself often slows down ur metabolism even more, which makes it harder to lose weight without medical issues. the will power to put urself into coma Jesus Christ.
There. Fixed it for you :) Yes, to me it seems like capitalism creates a society where most people get addicted just trying to cope with everyday life. For some it's alcohol, for some it's OxyContin, for some it's food, for some it's all-nighters in World of Warcraft.
"59.3 million (21.4%) people over age 12 used illicit drugs in the past year."
Can I ask that you read a large number of history books across any number of cultures on addictive behaviors throughout history, because you'll find that anytime a society had an excess of time and labor/production that people find addictive behaviors to enjoy. This is not recent. This is not capitalism. This is humanity.
What capitalism has done is given everybody enough free time from starvation to actually follow addictive pursuits.
Aren't there claims commonly made (I haven't reviewed the literature to know if it's compelling or not) that the medieval serf worked less than the modern worker?
I've read a number of studies like this and at the end of the day everyone ends up at apples != oranges.
If you wanted to live with the same amount of 'lifestyle' as a serf did then you'd likely only have to work a few hours a week. The issue is I don't think most people want to live that lifestyle. We like clean water to drink. We like sheltered houses with electricity. We love having a house that is too large and filling it up with an inordinate amount of crap. We love living in expensive places with a lot to do. Turns out wanting all that requires a lot of stuff.
At one point in my life I was more interesting in not working and messing around and doing other things. I worked around 40 hours a month for a few years and made enough of a living to pay my bills (hey, computer work pays good). So it's not impossible for at least some people to live like that , though with rent increases not sure if it's possible these days. But with all that said, I like having all the stuff that working a full time job gives to me, so there is that.
So you're saying it's a matter of lifestyle and not free time? Because here you're acknowledging they had free time, which goes against your argument "capitalism has ... given everybody enough free time from starvation to actually follow addictive pursuits", but drawing a distinction between things we have?
It almost seems like capitalism has brought us not free time, but an unquenchable desire for "having a house that is too large and filling it up with an inordinate amount of crap".
You know, if you go back and talk to any serf back in the day and I'm pretty sure that a very large percentage of them would want to be or lord or king themselves.
But would they want the latest and greatest hoe and have FOMO over someone else's vacation in the next village? It's not possible to be a lord and the serf would have known it, but we long for things that are attainable at a cost.
The fact you're trying to tie obesity to alcohol (Existed for thousands of years) and weed is bizarre, considering the far more natural and obvious link is copious amounts of sugar and hfcs (In drinks, spreads, processed food, etc).
A 5 years old kid is not obese because of drugs. He's obese because his parents feed him absolute garbage due to preference, price, eduction, etc.
Most modern/western people are hopelessly addicted to sweet
TLDR: The modern obesity epidemic is mostly a mystery, things like higher caloric food, western diet bad don't tell the whole story. Most likely answers are chemical contaminants in our foods and water i.e. lithium or PFAS chemicals. Interestingly enough both wild animals and lab animals(rats) have been getting fatter over time as well which clearly invalidates the "bad diet" theory. The Human body has a lipostat, you "natural weight" mechanism if you will and it seems these contaminants increase the lipostat and this results in widespread obesity.
TLDR: The modern obesity epidemic is mostly a mystery, things like higher caloric food, western diet bad don't tell the whole story.
I think it tells more of the story than contaminants does. A candy bar is packed with calories and not that filling. This didn't exist a long time ago.
The article I linked is very thorough. It covers basic issues like that:
"Today the rate of obesity in Italy, France, and Sweden is around 20%. In 1975, there was no country in the world that had an obesity rate higher than 15%.
This wasn’t a steady, gentle trend as food got better, or diets got worse. People had access to plenty of delicious, high-calorie foods back in 1965. Doritos were invented in 1966, Twinkies in 1930, Oreos in 1912, and Coca-Cola all the way back in 1886. So what changed in 1980?"
I love that series by Slime Mold Time Mold but I don't entirely agree with their conclusions. Sure, Doritos and Twinkies existed before 1980, but anybody who's been alive since the 60s or 70s can tell you that the food environment has changed dramatically in such a way that processed junk food is now much more accessible and makes up a larger portion of the average person's diet. There are probably multiple things going on that involve environmental contaminants, the food supply, and cultural attitudes towards food.
Sure but they cover those aspects too. It may in fact be due to eating more processed food but only as a function of that introducing more contaminants into your body.
I read the whole thing but I disagree with their conclusions re: processed foods. I'm more inclined to believe that processed foods promote overeating and override satiety cues in a way that adds up over time, as found in this very interesting study (check out the appendix with photos of all the meals, it's fun). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/
But you can account for this by equalizing caloric intake per day. It's an easy effect to deal with. I think much of their article is arguing directly against the idea that we just eat more calories.
This drug is a net good for society, but we have to fix the root problem. Much of the food we eat is filled with addictive ingredients (sugar, excess fats/oils, etc) that provide little nutritional value but are highly addictive.
We’re subsidizing companies that create unhealthy addictive food and subsidizing companies to create drugs to counter the unhealthy addictive food. This is an enormous waste of resources.
Disagree. People genuinely enjoy those foods, because they're tasty and flavorful. And there's zero reason to believe that they're substantially unhealthy unless consumed to the point of sustained caloric surplus. We know this because we have hunter-gatherer populations who consume 50% of their diets in sugar (e.g. the Hadza) or fats (e.g. Intuit), and they have none of the diseases of abundance found in modern populations because they have near zero obesity.
The problem is not the food. The problem is obesity. The food is only an issue because some people have overly strong appetites relative to the abundance of food. If we can cure obesity, then we can literally have our cake and eat it too.
Humans obviously value tasty and flavorful food, and its existence adds joy to people's lives. That's why they'll pay hundreds of dollars per meal for the best restaurants. In sum total the development of GLP-1 agonists has maybe cost $20 billion in research at most. That's literally less than 0.1% of global GDP, hardly an "enormous waste of resources".
There are randomised controlled trials of diets (without caloric restriction). They show that some diets are better than others for real clinical endpoints, eg mediterranean vs low fat diet for secondary prevention of cardiac events [1]. The effect size in that example is not small, it is large, despite most participants already being on a statin. This data shows that diets are biologically active and significantly impact health. Therefore, the philosophy you espouse cannot be correct, or at least needs to be heavily modified.
You haven't controlled for body weight changes though. Nobody doubts that diets (if adhered to) can reduce weight. So if biomarkers improve relative to an alternative diet, the question is it because A) the Med diet is more effective at weight loss, or B) the Med diet has benefits outside weight loss. The research you linked is interesting, but confounded by weight loss. Research that has directly tried to control for this has generally found that the health benefits of the Med diet are mostly or wholly attributable to the mediating impact of weight/fat loss.[1]
This is a critical question, because GLP-1 agonists like semaglutide are far more effective at weight loss (with much lower dropout rates) than any diet known to mankind. So if the benefit of the Med diet is mediated by weight loss, who cares in the age of GLP-1 agonists? It's like arguing about the fastest hot air balloon after the invention of the jet engine.
You just forget that there might be side-effects showing up in the long-run that we simply don't know yet (and possibly), why the mediterrean diet has been tested for a few hundred years already (where "diet" means what we have access to and eat, and not a small subset of foods forced on us that relies on a lot of mental effort to follow)
GLP-1 agonists were discovered in the 1980s, and there are already statistically significant population samples who have been using them to treat T2D for decades. Any serious common side effect would have been already discovered from the large-scale clinical trials that have been repeatedly conducted.
> The problem is not the food. The problem is obesity.
Junk food corporations make profit by selling food, and they are extremely good at this. They rely on intense advertising, making the food addictive, targeting children. As a side effect, people get obese since they consume more calories that what they need.
I don't know about GLP-1, but my intuition tells me that no drug is going to make eating Mac Donald's and drink Coke healthy, even if it doesn't make you obese.
Non-obese people who eat McDonalds and drink Coke are unequivocally healthier than obese people who adhere to the healthiest diets. There's absolutely zero academic research that disputes that obesity (and exercise) by far is the largest risk factor for diabetes, heart disease, etc.
This is pseudoscience. As long as you consume a certain amount of calories and get your daily nutritions, you can eat whatever you want without getting obese. You can still become obese eating 3000 kcals of salad every day without exercising. Of course, healthy caloric intake will only ensure you don't become obese, you'll still be consuming way more fat/carbs than you should if you eat McDonalds, but it is certainly possible to create a "healthy" everyday-McDonalds diet (but you would be changing the meal to the point it won't be recognizable)
Not sure if you're being purposefully ignorant or not so I'm not going to engage this discussion, but for anyone reading, this should be basic dietary knowledge
That "calorie is a calorie", or "every calorie counts", is not a basic dietary knowledge, it's a myth/lie promoted by a food industry.
You can keep believing the ads, or just search the term in google/duckduckgo and spend 5
minutes reading different sources.
Just a few examples (first link from a search engine):
"Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Sugar. This is the "big kahuna" of the "big lie." Sugar is not one chemical. It's two. Glucose is the energy of life. Every cell in every organism on the planet can burn glucose for energy. Glucose is mildly sweet, but not very interesting (think molasses). Fructose is an entirely different animal. Fructose is very sweet, the molecule we seek. Both burn at four calories per gram. If fructose were just like glucose, then sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would be just like starch. But fructose is not glucose. Because a calorie is not a calorie."
I'm very fascinated by the idea that part of the issue with ultra-processed foods is that the calories are more bioavailable due to the lack of fiber and protein.
3000 kcals of salad is huge in terms of volume, so getting obese is practically impossible on such a diet unless it was drowned in dressing. Bodybuilders that are on a cutting phase actually consume higher volume / lower calories foods to still feel satiated.
Kale is one of the most calorie dense leafy greens and it tops out at 80 kcal per 100 grams, meaning you'd need to eat about 3.7 kilograms of kale to get 3000 kcal.
You're strawmanning here. Parent commenter clearly meant healthy as in containing only "healthy" foods. If you eat 4,000 calories of brown rice, chicken and broccoli a day you will get fat. Colloquially, though, their diet would be called healthy because of it's constituent foods.
Edit: you will get fat assuming you are like most people and do not expend greater than 4k calories / day in total
You're fat because of what you're eating, and how little your moving, sorry dude but that's 100% true. Some of that might be out of your control, but it's reality...
While those are indeed major factors, there are others that come into play. For example, a change in your thyroid behavior can cause a loss/gain in weight without changing anything else.
It was not my intent to say that it's not possible to lose weight when you have a thyroid issue. Rather, my point was that your weight loss/gain is not determined solely by the amount of food and activity in your life. You can maintain the same amount of each and suddenly start gaining/losing weight because of a thyroid issue; or some other reason. But yes, the fact that there _are_ other factors doesn't mean you can't do things to combat/mitigate them. You're right, there.
It’s still early days, but there’s very compelling research around unhealthy gut flora being a significant factor in uncontrollable weight gain. Current hypotheses are essentially that certain bacteria, given free rein in the GI tract, are able to over-signal impulses for nutrition which typically leads to low satiation and high calorie intakes. It’s also hypothesized that gut flora can play a major role in suppressing satiation.
Again, only hypotheses at this time, but the existing data is far from fluffy and there’s a lot more in the pipes.
The most compelling research I’ve seen used various semi-controlled diets (unfortunately diet was indicated but ultimately self reported by subjects, as it didn’t occur strictly in a controlled environment) with some subjects receiving fecal transplants. Those receiving diverse flora from transplants succeeded much better in losing weight and keeping it off some months later. The study needed stricter controls and more subjects, but it’s a fascinating start.
I’ll point out that the cause of the differences in results isn’t necessarily gut flora alone, too — it’s all super preliminary. This comment is mostly just to say “there are other factors, we just aren’t sure what yet but we have some interesting leads”.
I didn't say that all fat people ate junk food, and I didn't say that obese people shouldn't take medication if that could help. Obesity rate in the US didn't got from 10% to 40% in a few decades simply because suddenly everybody started to develop thyroid issues or other condition.
No, what you said is that food marketing and the amount of sugars and fats in purchased foods are the cause of obesity.
Before the 80s, food also was packed with fat and sugar, and advertised constantly. I subjectively feel that people saw far more food advertising in the 80s and before than they do now. And the government diet suggestions were to increase your consumption of carbs and reduce fats.
edit: and people definitely drank far more Coke, and McDonald's meals were far less healthy.
> what you said is that food marketing and the amount of sugars and fats in purchased foods are the cause of obesity.
Yes, I mean the cause of the obesity epidemics we're witnessing. Not the reason why every single obese person is obese.
My subjective feeling as a European traveling to the US is that it's extremely hard to eat healthy food there. In some states, it seems everybody is obese, including children, and I myself need to fight actively not to gain weight there. People there don't seem to realize that their diet is very unhealthy, and I'm not even sure they make the connection with their obesity. And this trend is happening in Europe too, with a few years lag behind the US.
But this is only my conviction and I didn't find the data to back up my intuition. How do you explain why obesity rate went from 10% to 40% in a few decades?
Trying getting fat by eating healthy food instead of burger/fries/coke. Drink alone make a huge difference. On the long run, drinking soda instead of water can make you obese.
The magic trick is eating greens and high-water content foods, but they offer so little wow-factor that most people can’t keep it up long enough for it to become their normal food.
You know that if you cut all sugar for just 2 days things with very little sugar will taste very sweet?
We do not need the excessive amount of sugar in our food to fully enjoy it. The general public is just totally numb to it because of over consumption and companies are literally competing on having the sweater product.
> ... there's zero reason to believe that they're substantially unhealthy unless consumed to the point of sustained caloric surplus. We know this ...
Disagree.
> who consume 50% of their diets in sugar (e.g. the Hadza)
"Their diet is made up almost exclusively of food that they forage on the forest and includes fiber rich and highly nutritious berries, bananas and honey while any meat they eat is hunted and caught wild." (https://healthyfocus.org/the-hadza-diet-and-the-key-to-a-hea...)
They don't eat sugar. Fruits & vegetables with lots of fiber, wild game. Nothing like westerners diet ... so not really comparable, imho.
"... the Inuit's bodies have adapted to better handle the process of gluconeogenesis, in which the body turns fat and protein into useable glucose. The Inuit have larger livers and a larger volume of urine than the average human, which helps their bodies to process the byproducts of their diet." (https://oureverydaylife.com/486115-the-inuit-diet.html)
Also ... not applicable to a typical westerner.
> The problem is not the food. The problem is obesity.
The food is the problem.
Eat whole foods, mostly plants, minumum fats & sugar, and obesity is problem no more.
> the development of GLP-1 agonists has maybe cost $20 billion
What's the total cost of obesity? The cost of diabetes ? It is an enormous waste of resources.
Quality of food is certainly declining, but we are also seeing weight increases in lab rats with extremely controlled diets, so food probably isn't the entire story. There's no accepted explanation for this, but good candidates that might apply to humans are: subtle toxicity by microplastics, and changes in gut microbiomes.
I don’t think anyone claims that obesity is only achievable with modern processed food. At the end of the day it’s calories in, calories out.
That said, there’s more to the story. For instance, type 2 diabetes in children did NOT EXIST before ~1980, even though there was plenty of abundance and environmental contaminants. This suggest that there is a major issue with the food itself. If you look at where there is the most obesity, within the US or in the world, you also find a strong correlation with processed food. For instance, the Pacific Islanders who suffered obesity epidemics which coincided with processed food replacing their traditional diets.
I think "people value tasty food" is an oversimplification. It feels good but we regret it when we get fat, our health deteriorates, and with our health goes our participation in and contribution to everything and everyone we love. For many people, junk food starts to feel more like an addiction than a choice in line with highest values.
Sadly, this means it can be a problem when food tastes too good. The term of art is "hyperpalatable". Studies have shown that even lab animals gorge themselves and get fat and unhealthy when they get human junk food.
I think many people would be grateful to have hyperpalatable food restricted or limited or less visible to them, so the temptation is removed or moderated. How we implement that in society, in a liberal or authoritarian way or somewhere in between, is a separate question.
Also there is plenty of tasty food that isn't hyperpalatable. Those foods are more difficult to overeat because they're very filling. The problem with hyperpalatable junk food is that it's both especially pleasurable to eat and especially good at overriding our natural satiety cues. There's a world of difference between eating 1,000 calories of cheetos and 1,000 calories of brie cheese: one of them will make you incredibly full and the other will make you feel like you could just keep on crunching forever.
> And there's zero reason to believe that they're substantially unhealthy unless consumed to the point of sustained caloric surplus.
I have a hard time believing this without some very strong evidence for this claim. There's already existing evidence for greatly varying health effects of differences in cooking method, oil-type, omega ratios in fats, amino-acid ratios in proteins, glycemic index of carbs, sodium content, etc etc. It's hard for me to reconcile the suggestion that the content of food does not affect whether it is "substantially unhealthy"...
Try to find any major research showing either diet has a significant health impact on either 1) non-overweight individuals who remain non-overweight; or 2) has a health impact after controlling for changes in weight/obesity/body fat. It's virtually non-existent. Perhaps there are small differences on the margin, but all dwarfed by the impact of obesity.
Again this shouldn't shock us, because we know hunter-gatherers across the globe eat tremendously varied diets that come in all sorts of extremes. Yet, modern diseases of affluence (heart disease, diabetes, etc.) are virtually non-existent in these populations. The only thing they have in common is a lack of obesity and non-sedentary lifestyle.
> Try to find any major research showing either diet has a significant health impact on either 1) non-overweight individuals who remain non-overweight; or 2) has a health impact after controlling for changes in weight/obesity/body fat. It's virtually non-existent.
It's common sense.
And also easily provable at the limit: whose healthier at the end of 10 years, subject A consuming 2k calories of salad and lean meat per day, or subject B consuming 2k calories of vodka per day?
At least we know they'll both weigh the same, because thermodynamics, right?
The point is that certain diets are more likely to prevent non-overweight individuals from remaining non-overweight. Example study where participants ate two different diets, one highly processed and one less processed, that were matched for macronutrient and calorie content: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(19)30248...
No, I don't agree. We have evidence to suggest that a large number of normal weight people have poor metabolic health, likely due to diet: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30484738/
Not sure about the drugs, particularly if treatment has to continue indefinitely in order for people to keep the weight off. Someone else on here linked to a blog post about how those drugs increase the number of fat cells in the body but prevent fat cell hypertrophy, suggesting that rebound weight gain after the drugs are stopped could potentially leave patients worse off than they started. Most adults do not gain new fat cells when they gain weight, their existing fat cells merely get bigger. Leaving people with more fat cells than they had to begin with might make it even harder for them to maintain a lower weight without the drugs, given that fat cells are metabolically active. Who knows how many people may end up stopping them due to side effects or complications like the thyroid tumors these drugs are known to cause in mice. We know very little about the potential unintended consequences of these drugs.
Does the type of sugar, or type of fat not play a part here?
HFCS is notorious for the bad effects on the body, versus something like honey.
Same for the Intuit, simpler animal fats vs hydrogenated "trans" fats?
I feel like the key difference in their diets is it's not overly processed and full of things we've decided to put in there for cost reasons (corn subsidies making HFCS cheaper than cane sugar, and trans fats are cheaper than more expensive animal products).
Trans fats are indeed unhealthy, but 1) it's been nearly a decade since they were basically removed from fast food, and 2) they don't contribute to obesity.
As for HFCS, there's basically zero evidence that they're a major contributor to obesity versus other types of sugar. (In fact, honey consumed by the Hazda has almost the same balance as sugar as HFCS). We have multiple points of evidence to counteract this. 1) Mexico uses substantially less HFCS compared to other types of sugar, but Mexican obesity rates are as high as the US. 2) HFCS, and sugar in general, consumption has declined over the past 20 years. Yet obesity continues to increase. 3) HFCS was widely consumed in the 1980s, when the obesity rate was de minims.
There is almost no difference between sugar and HFCS. Sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is maybe 45/55 glucose/fructose. Fructose can only be metabolized by your liver into inflammatory fat cells in your belly. Glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body. HFCS would only be worse because it has more fructose but it's barely any worse than sugar. The whole hysteria over HFCS is a joke because sugar is nearly just as bad.
> Disagree. People genuinely enjoy those foods, because they're tasty and flavorful. And there's zero reason to believe that they're substantially unhealthy
I mean, there are responsible/functioning heroin users, it doesn't mean heroin is safe for everyone
> If we can cure obesity
Or you know, practice self control, which is easily in the top 3 of good traits to have and practice. But that's only a part of the equation, the other being the food industry abusing our monkey brains by adding all kind of additives to their food to trigger the right pathways so that we keep consuming their products.
I for one am happy that I escaped this hellish cycle and mostly consume fresh products, but I completely understand how people get tricked into eating heavily processed food and basically slowly sabotage their whole body
> Humans obviously value tasty and flavorful food, and its existence adds joy to people's lives.
We also enjoy all kind of things that cause harm to ourselves or others, this is an extremely weak argument, maybe the weakest of all concerning that topic
This analysis lacks proper understanding of the role that hunger and food drive plays.
Imagine that you are at the beach, and you can choose how deep you want to wade or how far you want to swim. If you like the water and the sun and the waves, this is very pleasant to imagine.
Now imagine that you are dropped into the ocean at night 200 meters from shore and you can't see land, you can't see lights. This is very unpleasant to imagine.
Our current food system is much like the second scenario.
Instead of framing it as whether or not it is possible to be healthy in this system, ask if the system is consistent with the goals of being healthy. Is a candy bar and a bag of chips consistent with the goals of being healthy?
If you are dropped in the ocean in the middle of the night, it is possible to swim to land. But it is also very likely that many people will not be able to swim to land in that scenario.
> The food is only an issue because some people have overly strong appetites relative to the abundance of food.
Then why is it advertised? Are food advertisements consistent with the goal of health?
Something can be true, satisfying, and incomplete. Why do they eat too much? Because of moral failing? Or because a system designed to maintain energy balance in only one direction is incomplete in our modern environment.
Hunger is not a moral failing, it is a physiological system.
I don't know you or where you are coming from, but it seems like you want people to take personal responsibility.
That's fine. People do need to take personal responsibility.
The answer can be more than that.
When I was younger, I wondered how any smart person could ever be obese. It did not make sense to me how someone could not figure out how to solve this problem. It did not seem at all complicated to me. Through my 20s and mid 30s, I was able to maintain a healthy weight, but increasing over time.
There are two different problems here that get lumped together: Why do people gain weight, and Why is it so hard for people to lose weight even after it's obvious that they should.
Maybe you want the world to be simple. That's fine. That's normal. It's hard to understand a complicated world.
Everyone understands that their own life is complicated, their own job is complicated, their own problems are complicated. Maybe other people also have complicated problems. Maybe.
> We know this because we have hunter-gatherer populations who consume 50% of their diets in sugar (e.g. the Hadza) or fats (e.g. Intuit), and they have none of the diseases of abundance found in modern populations because they have near zero obesity.
The often-cited studies suggesting Inuit populations were protected from heart disease (Bang and Dyerberg, Feldman et al) comes from limited data which has since been refuted as unreliable and insufficient. The hypotheses they generated don't hold up to the greater balance of data we have, and despite attempts to confirm findings, it simply hasn't happened.
Some studies have suggested to a lesser degree that Inuit populations have marginally smaller rates of coronary artery disease (and other cardiovascular complications), but far more have determined that rates are the same or in some cases/time frames even worse, and risk of stroke has generally trended higher as well. These are all incidents of mortality which have a very, very high correlation with diets which are high in animal fats (as well as salt, regarding strokes).
I agree that obesity is a major issue (especially in the case of sugar; it appears less harmful to the body when the sugar is needed and thus used immediately, but harmful when it hangs around and gets turned into fat. This is the main cause of the surge in fatty liver disease, for example), but there is very little and often very poor evidence that obesity is what causes atherosclerosis to occur and become a mortal danger. It seems to be dangerous regardless of weight, and exercise doesn't appear to be wholly protective against it either.
Inuits have actually served as a good example as to why this is true. Even when their obesity rates were lower, their lifestyles required more activity than average, and when studies accounted for BMI, their CAD rates were still on par with western populations according to most data.
I think the only way you can make this argument is to have a completely value agnostic perspective and believe that any individual value curve is good. Is Meth good because people clearly value it enough to destroy their lives to get more? No. It isn't - we know individual value assessment isn't always right.
People genuinely enjoy those foods because they're closer to their bliss point than natural analogues. Increasing salt, fat and sugar content of processed foods doesn't mean they're better for consumers. They just mean they're more addictive. People consume more of them and are more likely to purchase them in the future.
We have no issues identifying that restrictions on tobacco are acceptable from a public health standpoint - the same chemical reward hijacking is being done with food.
It appears that limiting these bliss-factor ingredients would have a major impact on processed food sales, and as such, lobbying will continue to prevent governments from implementing and maintaining a meaningful reduction.
Interestingly, a reduction in consumption of processed foods would also likely have a significant impact on the need for health interventions with drugs. We have massive industries propped up by people’s cravings for junk.
I disagree. Low quality processed foods, typically found in western diets, glysophates, high in industrial seed oils, processed sugars, and salts, are likely one of the biggest reasons for all the negative health effects we are seeing in the western diet, calorie numbers be damned.
Any quantity of this food, long term, is likely the reason for the explosive amount of health issues in the population, including many cancers we now commonly deal with.
One of the biggest changes to my health I ever noticed was a switch not in how I ate, but in WHAT I ate.
When I switched my diet over to high quality foods, organic and garden grown, meat I purchased from a local hunter, it made a substantial impact on my health, helped to fix a lot of my cholesterol and blood sugar numbers, and my overall health shot through the roof. No pills required, just decent ingredients, garden grown food, high quality meat.
Peoples appetites are larger than their physical ability level provides for.
We transitioned from a hunter gatherer, to an agrarian, to an industrial society - because most people needed to do much physical activity to survive, even when food was plentiful.
The information age is much more sedentary, but people have evolved needs to eat a certain amount of volume to feel satiated. The fact that our foods are super nutritious/calorie dense makes matters worse.
> Disagree. People genuinely enjoy those foods, because they're tasty and flavorful. And there's zero reason to believe that they're substantially unhealthy unless consumed to the point of sustained caloric surplus.
People enjoy drugs, I agree. Some get addicted and die though.
> believe that they're substantially unhealthy unless consumed to the point of sustained caloric surplus.
They are, im not fat (visible flexed abs) I did a blood test and found some issues. I cut out the saturated fats I was eating. Brownies, butter, slow cooked meats. tests were normal again.
The existence of (active) hunter-gatherer societies living heavily on (natural) fats and sugars seems completely irrelevant to the problem of obesity in sedentary societies eating many processed foods.
I don't think it's half-plausible to compare Hadza or Intuit diets to a Big Mac and a soda. Neither transfats nor processed sugars are in the Hadza diet, just for example.
By this "reasoning", all food is processed amino acids and related elements. But despite such sophistry, there's a measurable difference between a human-machine-processed diet and an animal-processed diet. Good figure.
Uhhh you're a little disillusioned to think that a very very small subset of humans paying hundred of dollars for a meal is a baseline for why "humans value tasty and flavorful food". Just because some people drive 160mph on a highway does not mean its a good idea. The fact that you're arguing a box of oreos is equally nutritious to a calorie equal amount of say protein and/or vegetables is actually baffling.
While we are drowning in quick to consume, non-nutritious, calories, we also have higher levels of anxiety, stress and more distractions.
To your comment, maybe more countries should attempt to implement programs similar to the UK's success in lowering sodium intake by slowly adjusting the sodium content of all manufacturered foods. https://www.nature.com/articles/jhh2013105
Why should that be true? Your kids aren't going off to WW2 to die. You aren't going to starve if bugs ate your crops. You aren't going to get clubbed and robbed if you follow a forest path.
I would say our 'actual' stressors are far less, but our contrived stressors are far more.
The fact I'm not going to die tomorrow from starvation is an actual reduction in stress.
The fact that someone on the TV is screaming 24/7 that I'm going 'fucking die because THEY are out to get me' is a contrived stressor that has a real effect on everybody in society.
Maybe that's the point. A lack of overt threats leads to greater trepidation over covert threats. Wouldn't you think that there was more anxiety and stress in the Cold War among the civilian population than in WWII? Certainly societal upheavals seem to indicate so.
> Wouldn't you think that there was more anxiety and stress in the Cold War among the civilian population than in WWII?
No. I lived through part of the cold war.
In WW2 everybody knew families with dead sons or sons that came back in pieces or sons that just disappeared. My neighbor in the 60s was a paratrooper, who came back missing a leg.
I agree that we have incredible waste on both sides, but there is an even greater culprit: people are lacking true meaning and purpose in their lives and are indulging in these foods to distract themselves from their inner emptiness.
This is a pretty big leap, what is even "true meaning and purpose"? The culprit is that this food is literally everywhere and billions of dollars are poured into research everywhere to design systems that entice humans to take the convenient way out. If I was to go along with your hypothesis, I would alter it to say that poor nutrition is what contributes to a person's lack of "true meaning and purpose".
I agree that society has been designed to make things more and more convenient in the name of progress and that we haven't made the nutritious food convenient yet. Stated another way, poor nutrition is the default choice in most of the western world.
Still, I think its possible to make the idea of "purpose" more concrete. You could define "true meaning and purpose" to be goals that are greater than oneself that require one's full potential in mind and body and sacrifice of immediate pleasures for long-term gain. The widespread nature of obesity indicates that many people don't consider a healthy body as necessary for their goals and hence don't sacrifice immediate food gratification for those goals. Hence most people don't have goals that require their full body potential.
> what is even "[lacking] true meaning and purpose"?
Perhaps the alienation of workers from the fruits of their labor? It's underrated how depressing it is to not get to eat the sausage you broke your back making.
When we talk about things, we sometimes use their relationship to other things to define them rather than talking about them directly. I'm not sure how my answer is irrelevant and deserving of your snark.
If we're going to treat calories as addictive and addiction as a disease rather than a personal failing it should follow that we treat the disease with a drug.
The problem is that we are plausibly looking at the result of a change over the last thirty or fifty year in the quality of what's considered the normal diet, notably normalizing calories through the consumption of sugary drinks but also a variety of other things. This has had the side-effect of an obesity epidemic.
Now, what are we doing?
* Getting people to stop consuming sugary drinks and other very unhealthy items (maybe that would require drugs at this point)?
* Or offer people drugs so this side-effect of an unhealthy diet can be avoided?
If we're offer a way to continue a bad diet without this effect, it seems very likely further bad effects will appear X many years from now from a combination of the drugs and the bad diet. Because virtually all drugs taken forever accumulate side-effects over since the body did evolve to process them (these drugs may indeed be needed at times but the point remains).
This class of drugs does address the bad diet though, doesn't it?
Anyway, 'getting people to stop' turns out to be impossible for some. The drugs are meant to help with that.
Diet soda and bottled water exist and somehow people still keep choosing sugary drinks. In fact people often have a ready excuse for why they consider diet soda more unhealthy!
If we assume addictions as a disease then we mostly treat them with regulation. Smoking companies would have loved if we just made a pill that mitigates tar in your lungs instead of all but legislating them into obscurity.
At the end of the day you don't have to smoke, not that people won't.
At the end of the day, or maybe week, or possible even month you have to eat or you're going to die. Simply put you require caloric intake to survive. Yea, you can ban coke and candybars, and hell that's a good idea. But what about bread? Or do you monitor and watch to make sure everyone only eats two slices? Make sure foods at restaurants only have so many calories per serving and ensure they people can only buy one meal per meal?
At some point it still falls apart because it is human nature to massively overconsume since the vast majority of history we've been calorie short. You're dealing with an animal response here that is going to be very difficult to override to the under/normal consumption side.
Jury is still out on how food companies will take a situation where people can be prescribed a pill to be less hungry. I imagine they'd be more scared if it was OTC though.
They didn’t say calories are addictive. They clearly said certain foods are addictive. Those foods should be more regulated like cigarettes and companies take more responsibility as a first or at least concurrent step to everyone taking more drugs.
As far as I can tell, our social policies don't really work for managing addiction. We just hook up a vacuum cleaner to people's pockets and suck the money out of them if they smoke. Call it a "sin tax". But the problem is that people prioritize their next fix above other things; would you rather get some cigarettes or pay your rent, many people choose the cigarettes. I'm not sure how that helps anyone, and I'm not sure how expanding it to sodas or doughnuts would help anyone.
Regressive taxes also don't work well. I don't always eat super healthy. Making unhealthy food cost more wouldn't have any measurable impact, except maybe tanking my 401k because half the Fortune 500 goes out of business.
I'm not sure I buy that argument though. The idea that you can squarely blame the obesity epidemic on some foods and not others.
Hell I'd be ok with banning all forms of food advertising and requiring that all foods be blank packages with nothing but the ingredients, nutrition facts, and a short description of how they were prepared. I'd prefer that world on general principle. But I don't think it would fix the obesity epidemic.
That really is the core of the issue, and furthermore once you've used to a sugar diet you crave it more and regular food starts tasting worse in comparison somehow. I bet it's something to do with the gut-brain connection and a large glut of sugar eating bacteria signalling it's time to feed them. Just a theory, but there is some kind of correlated process there.
And the reverse is also true, if you go a while without eating anything high in sugar, what used to taste normal can taste almost unbearably sweet. Exceedingly hard to do with it added to just about all things in absurd amounts though.
The first time I tried ketchup after strictly avoiding added sugars for several weeks was a WILD experience. It tasted sweeter than maple syrup. I used to douse my food in ketchup and now I can't even eat it on fries because it's so sickeningly sweet. I noticed the same with most bottled salad dressings and sauces (barbecue sauce and honey mustard being even more egregious than ketchup).
Is it?! Maybe I need to order some tomato sauce from Australia. I miss ketchup, I just want it to taste like salt/vinegar/tomato like it used to before I noticed the sugar.
> We’re subsidizing companies that create unhealthy addictive food
People love to bitch about the "diet industry" (which as a whole, seems to be almost entirely bro-science and snake oil), but the profits made there pale in comparison to fast food and processed food. It's really something that we should fix, like we did with tobacco and alcohol.
Fixing food deserts, even though they are not really widespread enough to entirely account for the obesity epidemic, needs to happen as well.
And taking subsidies away from animal products like meat, dairy and corn (specifically for HFCS) would go a long ways to improving the standard American diet (aka, SAD).
Even healthy, nutritious food is packed with calories. Anything that is not a fruit or vegetable can easily cause weight gain. Before civilization, humans had to expend a lot of energy just to get food, what little they could obtain.
Of course it is, which is fantastic for the economy. Like the Industrial War Complex, it's horrifically bad for people and resources, but does wonders for the pockets of those in power
Carbohydrates, fat and protein are the 3 main classes of molecules humans need to survive. Sugar is simply a fast absorbed carbohydrate, glucose is basically the very thing that keeps us alive 99% of the time. We are literally build around glucose. Marking it as "addictive" and without nutritional value is idiotic.
A choice of a particular diet high in sugar can have negative affects, but guess what, you can chose a different diet and stop being obese instead of asking for one of the most important nutrients that exist to be banned.
Isn't all food addictive? Is there something more specific you mean about addition when it comes to these foods? It seems like it may be more about caloric density than addiction.
If you just mean "if you don't eat, you die", I don't think that qualifies as an addiction.
If you mean "if you suddenly eat a lot more for some meal than you usually do, you will likely be more hungry the next day than usual", I also don't think that really qualifies. It's not the same kind of thing?
It's not just "if you don't eat, you die". It's that you have a strong yearning to eat. Now that's probably an evolutionary adaptation to "if you don't eat, you die", but nevertheless I want to eat pretty consistently every day. Again, how is that different than a nicotine addiction? The only difference is that if I don't smoke, I won't die...
I think it is possible to make a coherent distinction between what has been termed “psychological addiction” and what has been termed “chemical addiction” without denying that the brain works by transport of, and reactions between, chemicals.
I don’t know how to precisely make this distinction because I am not a neuroscientist (neurobiologist?) .
But I’m still fairly confident that this distinction can be made in theory, and not just in practice.
Probably something about how some compounds (that generally aren’t present in the brain in substantial quantities) bind to some receptors, and this has such and such consequences, and then later when said compounds are not present, either some other receptors are plugged or inactive or are active, or some other chemicals are present in higher or lower than normal concentrations, in ways that cause problems which would in some ways be alleviated by the aforementioned compounds that are not typically in the brain in large quantities, and which would not be alleviated by whatever other compounds that would activate reward centers or whatever.
When someone is addicted to nicotine, they are addicted to specifically nicotine. When someone is addicted to alcohol, they are addicted to specifically alcohol.
What does "specifically addictive" mean though? People keep saying it, but give no definition for it.
And you needing water every three days is meaningful. In fact, that's a great definition! Its clear what the meaning in the case of water is. I'm not sure what saying "Doritos" is addictive means? I love Doritos, but when I traveled abroad I went six months without seeing a bag and never thought of them. What exactly does "specifically addictive" mean?
Once you start eating them it's difficult to stop because they override normal satiety mechanisms. Foods like Doritos are quite literally engineered for maximum pleasure (dopamine) and minimum satiety. I'm sober now and I've noticed that it's incredibly hard for me to drink more than one or two glasses of juice but incredibly easy for me to drink alcohol indefinitely - it feels similar to the difference between eating Doritos and eating nuts or cheese, where one promotes satiety while the other actively drives overconsumption. Relevant article: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinar...
> Once you start eating them it's difficult to stop because they override normal satiety mechanisms
But it's not difficult to stop. From a volume/mass perspective I eat fairly small amount of Doritos in sittings compared to most "healthy" food. Its just that Doritos are super calorie dense. I definitely eat a higher mass of eggplant in a sitting than Doritos. And when I don't have access to Doritos, I don't ever think of doing anything unethical or illegal to obtain access.
Also addiction is not defined by unethical or illegal behavior - it's about continuing to do something even when you know you're harming yourself by doing it (and even when you actively want to stop). People go to great lengths for things they're addicted to without doing anything remotely unethical or illegal but while still doing things you'd probably consider totally insane.
That was just an example. Often people will do unethical or illegal things to feed an addiction. Rarely, do people do things, like prostitute themselves for junk food.
Now your point is that people may eat themselves into unhealthy situations and want to stop. That is probably true, although I wonder how much of that is convenience, rather than addiction.
Not OP but I do. If I had a plate of steamed or roasted broccoli available on demand at any time, I would eat it like most people do chips. Broccoli tastes great, but requires a lot more prep than “junk food” to get there.
I eat junk food mainly because it takes me no effort and still tastes good: for me the addiction is not having to put in any effort to be satiated, more than the taste itself.
And when I do eat junk food I don't eat a crazy amount in volume. But the calorie density of them makes it such that I ate a crazy amount of calories. It's not that I eat a bag of chips per day. But a small bag of chips is 240 calories, while carrot chips of the same mass/volume are 20 calories.
Do I prefer junk food over some healthy food -- yes, probably so (but I love broccoli). But I don't know that my eating habits are drastically different between the two. To put it another way, if the junk food I ate suddenly became healthy for you, I think people say I was just eating a healthy diet.
I am the opposite - my eating habits are drastically different between the two. I find it very easy to eat reasonable amounts of healthy, whole foods and stop eating when I'm full. I find it virtually impossible to self-regulate my consumption of junk food. I will eat it when I'm not hungry, I crave it at odd times, I start eating it and I can't stop. I used to crave specific junk foods to the point that it was all I could think about and I'd leave my house in the middle of the night to walk 20 blocks through NYC to the one bodega that I knew would be open and would have the thing I was craving. On more than one occasion I have thrown a half-full bag of chips in the trash and then fished it out a couple hours later to finish it. It's disgusting.
I may have an unusually addictive personality given that I've had issues with abusing other substances, but I noticed these addictive food behaviors in myself from a very young age before I'd ever touched alcohol or drugs. They bear little resemblance to how I eat when presented with fresh foods. We probably all have varying degrees of susceptibility to addictive junk foods and I'm just more susceptible than you (though also lucky enough to be very energetic and active so I haven't actually ended up overweight).
I guess we all have our differences. Part of the reason why I do eat junk food is largely the opposite reason compared to you. I'm too lazy to go get something I want to eat, so I'll just eat what is easiest to consume right now -- and it'll be something sitting in a bag in the pantry, rather than something I have to chop up or cook. But if I could afford a chef, ohh... I'd do that in a minute!
I only let myself eat junk food in a situation where I'm comfortable going way overboard because it's somehow self-limiting without requiring much willpower on my part. I can't keep it in my house for regular consumption because the convenience isn't worth the downsides of overeating and making myself feel like crap. I do keep easy snacks on hand - things like blocks of cheese and olives and deli meat and fruit. Even homemade popcorn with real melted butter is fine. I find all of those things difficult to overeat, unlike chips or cheetos or ramen noodles. I, too, wish I could afford a chef though!
Hell yes. Have you ever roasted it with some lemon slices? Or broken up all the individual florets with a mandolin and tossed it as a salad? Whirred it into a soup? Broccoli is incredible.
I think that toxin exposure - unavoidable in the modern world - is likely the biggest culprit here. There are plenty of ideas about which toxins are causing the problem, but there are so many that it would be nigh on impossible to regulate them all out of the environment.
I would think you're completely wrong. The green revolution was the first time in history that we were able to continually produce excess food for (excluding distribution issues) the entire earths population. Even more so, the new foods we are able to supply via processing are highly calorically dense.
Simply put if you take mammalian models and allow them to eat all they want they blow up like little balloons. This is no different from bears feasting on salmon for the last millions of years. Creatures are designed to overconsume because the ones that didn't in the past didn't make it thru the lean times.
Petro Dobromylskyj is one of the foremost experts of fat metabolism. He has a blog called Hyperlipid where he's been blogging about fat metabolism and interpreting research for close to 10 years.
He thinks the GLP-1 inhibitor drugs will be a disaster in the long term because they 1) cause weight loss but also 2) cause the body to create lots of new adipocyte (fat cells). Increasing the number of adipocytes is very unusual after puberty. As long as you are taking the GLP-1 inhibitor drugs you will lose or maintain weight, but as soon as you stop you will gain a lot of weight back.
I don't know if I'd call a veterinary anaesthetist a foremost expert on fat metabolism. His thoughts on insulin signaling are not consistent with the consensus among obesity researchers. He thinks glp-1 works through uncoupling or fat browning which is just not true.
The consensus among most obesity researchers is the cause of obesity is primarily neurological, not metabolic. Basically the brain can't properly regulate weight in the current obesogenic environment. When you look at GWAS most of the genes related to obesity are active in the brain, (as opposed to genes for diabetes which are more closely related to fat/metabolism etc...).
I'd describe Petro Dobromylskyj as a smart hobbyist with an outsiders views of obesity, not a foremost expert on fat metabolism.
1. If the expert consensus is that the cause is neurological rather than metabolic, it seems more important to not that human neurology really is so different than other mammalian neurology.
2. Clinical anesthesiology is pretty far from this topic.
The only published paper I can find by him is on small animal ventilation, so I don’t think he’s a “foremost expert” on fat metabolism in animals either.
World leading experts usually have an impressive publishing record in the field, often a top academic research position and a long record of speaking at important global conferences on the area.
Does he have all those? I'm honestly asking, I've never heard of him.
Hey, you basically worship credentials, so you're not going to be impressed with a person who doesn't have them regardless of their breadth and depth of knowledge. I don't know what to tell you.
I did a little bit of research and for people in the UK it appears to be substantially less. I found a few health companies offering it for <$250/mo. I’ll probably wait until it’s readily available on the NHS but it is tempting.
My US doctor recommended it to me last week and said there was a way for it to cost about $200/mo if I want to do that. I thought it was strange that he said it that way instead of just saying the price, but I didn't follow up because we were 45 minutes into the appointment and I was ready to get out of there.
I'm supposed to book a follow up appointment after I've read about it, so I guess I'll find out what he means then.
They typically are income blind and make your out-of-pocket price negligible. I'm on a med (Skyrizi) that's $18k per shot, one every three months; their assistance program ensures I don't pay more than $5.
They chip in on the deductible/coinsurance/copay, you don't skip the medication due to cost, and they still get significant money out of your insurer. Everybody wins, until everyone's premiums go up next year.
Your doc was probably referring to purchasing semaglutide from a compounding pharmacy, which is usually in the $200/month range (depending on dose). Compounded versions don't typically come in the user friendly "injection pen" format that brand name versions do, so not everybody is comfortable with that option.
It does but it doesn’t mean you get any treatment available. They carefully make decisions on what treatments they can/should provide. This may be offered eventually but at the moment it’s a case of be very fat and get offered gastric sleeve or just be overweight and no treatments are offered other than advice about losing weight
Semaglutide is available on the NHS but I wouldn't currently qualify. It'd only be prescribed if I met certain criteria such as having type 2 diabetes.
It's a case of either paying for a private prescription now, or waiting until it's made more accessible on the NHS.
Considering the benefits of good diets and exercise, I think it's worth it not trying to hack or shortcut our way to a healthy life with weird drugs or whatever.
>I am Petro Dobromylskyj, always known as Peter. I'm a vet, trained at the RVC, London University. I was fortunate enough to intercalate a BSc degree in physiology in to my veterinary degree. I was even more fortunate to study under Patrick Wall at UCH, who set me on course to become a veterinary anaesthetist, mostly working on acute pain control. That led to the Certificate then Diploma in Veterinary Anaesthesia and enough publications to allow me to enter the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia as a de facto founding member. Anaesthesia teaches you a lot. Basic science is combined with the occasional need to act rapidly. Wrong decisions can reward you with catastrophe in seconds. Thinking is mandatory. I stumbled on to nutrition completely by accident. Once you have been taught to think, it's hard to stop. I think about lots of things. These are some of them.
youtube consistently steers everyone who touches it to more and more extreme content with the passage of time. It's not unique, and often times that content tends to be anti-science.
I'm not the OP but youtube is tainted for anything other than entertainment and a few select channels like the ones by PBS e.g Space Time.
That's in stark contrast to my opinion about YouTube. I have a huge list of highly trust worthy subscriptions / reference channels and no other social media platform comes close. If you live on your subscriptions channel, you never need to worry about content being thrown at you, or radicalization rabbit holes.
I can easily find upper graduate university lectures for complex topics. YouTube makes it easy to link first sources unlike other image/video platforms. Also, since they appear on official pages of reputed sources (conference channel, university channel) there is a certain level of reliability irrespective of who the speaker is.
Lastly, search for any popular video on YouTube and you will see just as many 'response' videos. While not intentional, it helps avoid echo chambering as the counter argument is readily available .
> If you live on your subscriptions channel, you never need to worry about content being thrown at you, or radicalization rabbit holes.
Ok, but you understand why someone might be weary that the most common first hit for someone might be an arbitrary youtube video given your premise is living on the channels you've subscribed to.
The bulk of youtube's content is garbage. You have to go sifting through the content over time, suffering through the recommendation engine (or a shortcut - ask friends who've already lived through that nightmare) to find the geese who lay the good eggs.
Note that they're also talking about Google search ranking. People who are actual experts in things tend to have meatier hits at the top than J Random Vlogger.
Every time some rando on the 'net claims "do your own research" they'll send a link to a YouTube video of some charming BS artist with no qualifications peddling ideological garbage to whomever is credulous enough to watch it uncritically.
Are there good YT channels? Yeah. But 9 times out of 10 (or more) when I search for some rando's recommended expert and the first result is a YT video, it's crap. Utter crap.
I nearly choked when my sister-in-law told me a couple years ago about some really convincing anti-vaccine information she had read which made her very nervous. I asked her what she'd heard, and she gave me a link to a YT video by Dr. Shiva. Yes, THAT Dr. Shiva. Ha! I tried to break it to her gently, but I'm pretty sure she still decided he was a credible source of information.
What makes you say that? In my experience, there are no 'experts' in empirical fields who are no themselves deeply and practically engaged with actual research. Being well-read does not make you an expert. Writing blog posts and appearing on YT doesn't make you an expert. Critics are not experts. To be an expert in anything you have to get your hands dirty.
Nothing I can see from this guys publications or bio make it seems like he's an expert in human fat metabolism at all, let alone a 'foremost' one. I base this on a fairly cursory survey, so I'm happy to be corrected. But convincing corrections would absolutely require details regarding what he has contributed to the field.
With every weight loss intervention when you stop you gain back the weight. GLP-1 agonists don't seem to be any different than another other intervention.
The point is that you could gain back the original weight plus more. Most adults who become obese have not increased their number of fat cells - their fat cells just become larger.
The GLP-1 drugs literally increase the number of fat cells.
I suppose the concern goes something like this. Under certain metabolic conditions, each fat cell (in a region) decides it needs to be size X, and grows / shrinks accordingly. And under other conditions, each fat cell (in the same region) decides it needs to be size X*3.
If there are more fat cells, then and they all decide to increase in size, then that could be a substantial weight gain, beyond what would be expected otherwise.
Liposuction is no answer. Your body puts back the removed fat cells in other places.
The human body has VERY strong setpoints about weight. Fat cells "remember" the weight that you had when they were created. You have to hold your weight at a point for something like 3-5 years before your body relents enough that the setpoint moves.
The aggregation of the tiny setpoints creates your larger setpoint by either drawing out from or pushing into your bloodstream the lipids that they have.
This is one of the most infuriating things about the "you just need to eat less" crowd. That's simply the first step. But you somehow need to maintain that for years while your body readjusts since fat cells turn over fairly slowly in your body (about 20-25% per year).
Maintaining a lower body weight while your body is actively fighting you for years is a superhuman level of willpower that very few of us can muster.
I specifically asked doctors and they were like "I dunno. Well, that was a fun 5 minute conversation, give me $300"
I guess it's never too late, though. I've been slacking off on getting in shape, since it does take raw willpower 20 times a day every day in order to get there and stay there, and it's not that compelling to think that I'm going to be stuck rolling willpower checks all the time forever.
If I just have to get in shape and force myself to stay that way through raw willpower for ~4 years in order to stay that way for free afterward, though, that sounds like a more worthwhile goal
It is never too late. And please don't beat yourself up when you fail. Simply sigh, dust yourself off, and try to do better. Given that you have to maintain this for years, you will sometimes fail--it's inevitable.
There is increasing amounts of science behind this stuff, but it's also buried behind a gargantuan pile of crap.
It's what I thought of here also. Most notably, liposuction has faired very poorly in studies of long-term health outcomes. Without the requisite changes in lifestyle or metabolism the fat that gets sucked out is replaced very quickly and has almost no decrease in risk of obesity-related illnesses.
> Weight gain was reported in 43 percent of the responders, with 56 percent of them gaining between 5 and 10 pounds 6 months after their surgery. Fat return was reported in 65 percent of the responders.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16651945/
Liposuction isn't a solution for fat loss beyond some localised cosmetic reduction. You can't use it to put a morbidly obese person in normal BMI range.
My point is that you end up with fewer fat cells, but unsure whether this has any impact on weight regain.
(Which is worth assessing if there are concerns about these drugs increasing the number of fat cells (otherwise unusual in adulthood) and creating a risk of fat volume rebound beyond initial levels after discontinuation).
Weight is back to baseline within a few months after lipectomy and sometimes greater than baseline. In animal models there is regeneration of fat cell number following lipectomy along with increase in cell size, and which mechanism predominates depends on how large the fat cells were before (manipulated by reducing food). This is the critical fat cell size hypothesis, and in humans there is similarly evidence that fat cell number increases (hyperplasia) in advanced stages of obesity after the cells reach critical size (hypertrophy) but I'm not aware of that being studied in situ in lipectomy recovery. I'd make a confident guess that it depends on how obese the patient is and perhaps their baseline number of fat cells.
But there are a lot of different mechanisms and feedbacks at play and I'm not sure how much insight can be gained from comparing localised lipectomy to systemic adipocyte proliferation resulting from a drug.
This sounds especially bad cosmetically, because the fat will show up in some place it didn't used to. I would imagine it could make you look even worse.
> With every weight loss intervention when you stop you gain back the weight. GLP-1 agonists don't seem to be any different than another other intervention.
Except for one thing: it's fairly easy to not stop a drug. You just... keep taking it. Long-term use of these drugs for maintenance purposes looks entirely feasible. Not quite as easy to maintain as a gastric bypass, but close enough to be a big deal.
The same isn't true for exercise and diet; it's very easy to fall off those wagons.
A family member has had gastric bypass. You can have everything “replumbed” if complications require failing back to something similar to previous state.
With that said, I would be interested if new weight loss drugs negate the need for gastric bypass in the first place. Comes across as medieval and barbaric if the hormones/drugs are superior.
Credentials aren’t everything but at the least I want someone to be in the field doing things in practice (research or patients) everyone else including me should shut up otherwise.
I don't see evidence that this person knows what they are talking about. I see they talk a lot about it, but we know very well that talking, including in the specific manner they do (at length, citing lots of stuff), are also traits of people who are completely deceived or deceiving, conspiracy theorists and fabulists, etc.
>As long as you are taking the GLP-1 inhibitor drugs you will lose or maintain weight, but as soon as you stop you will gain a lot of weight back.
Sounds like the opposite of a disaster for pharmaceutical companies.
Well, on the upside, the demand for this is so great that cheap generics shouldn't be too far away, right? And it seems like an insurance no-brainer to cover it for life, right?
Problem with diets is that your body responds to this new habit by panicking, thinking you’re going through a famine and reduces metabolism to compensate for reduced caloric intake while increasing hunger. It’s like if you’re he body responded to brushing your teeth every day by making you obsess over caramel corn. Most habit changes don’t have this “body actively fighting you with increasing ferocity” effect that caloric restriction does.
But what if your “good diet” DOES send your body into a panic? That is, physiologically, what occurs with many obese people when they lose weight, REGARDLESS OF WHICH DIET THEY PICK.
Keywords were "after adjustment period". Your body will Panic if you quit smoking, alcohol, or many hard drugs. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do so.
Your body will also panic if you start working out vigorously, confront hard but necessary situations, or many other aspects of human life.
If a prescription help someone make a productive transition, that's great. My point is simply that I'm cautious of potentially lifelong crutches to avoid making difficult changes, and there's value in cultivating the ability to maintain your personal homeostasis if you can
Again, with the idea it’s just a willpower thing to overcome some hurdle. The “panic period” is permanent for many obese people. There’s literally no end to fighting your body once you’ve lost substantial weight, it’s ALWAYS trying to lower metabolism and increase hunger to compensate. It’s not a few months and then you’re good, it’s forever. This is why a treatment like this is so necessary.
If there are easy alternatives with the same outcomes, hard things absolutely should not be done (unless you're practicing for an emergency situation where the easy thing is not available.)
Even in a utilitarian framework, there is more to consider besides outcomes, such as costs.
Examples of costs could be be the reoccurring monetary cost for the rest of your life, and being dependent on the supply of medicine to maintain your health.
Additionally, there are personal advantages to being an individual that is capable of doing and regularly practices "hard things".
No doubt. The old habits are easier. It’s way easier to order in food and lay in bed than to cook and workout. Of course, it’s overly reductionist to assume weight loss is as easy as “stop laying around, eat healthy, and exercise.”
It kind of is that simple, but there are so many factors that help prevent us from good habits. I think my biggest issue is that food is one of the few things in my life that’s ever evoked a positive response for me. I’ve gone years without being fat, but it comes back because of some issue I encounter, and I lack the tools to deal with it in a better way. So I get depressed and eat, and eventually hate myself for falling apart again, and so we go, forever and always.
I think the big lesson from Semaglutide is that bad eating habits are not the primary cause of obesity. More likely they are correlated due to common causation.
380->340 over 6 months. I was off for 6 months and maintained 340 with diet changes and exercise. You cannot go back to the old diet and expect to maintain. I'm back on now to lose some more.
Some other things I've learned:
Take the first shot on an empty stomach. Expect the first 3 days to be rough. Hunger is more than one sensation, and when you have severe calorie deficit, your body will feel very bad (at least at first).
It is critical to control your food environment - don't bring junk food home, don't go to restaurants too often.
I learned to slow down and enjoy the food reward, instead of trying to chase it. No words will tell you how to do this for yourself.
There is a feeling that I call "future hunger", where I don't feel bad, but I feel like I will in a while. In the past, my body and mind would get frantic when I felt this way. Now I have a very small snack and ask myself "do you feel bad right now, or do you feel like you're going to feel bad". Again, these words may not translate.
More than one serving of salty and sugary snacks should NEVER be within arms reach, and preferably not in the same room. Your mind will remember these snacks and oftentimes eat them without conscious effort.
I'm on semaglutide. Was on Saxenda, because I couldn't get access to Wegovy at the lowest dosage. But now I'm on Wegovy, for half a week so far.
I was retching horribly one night at 2 am, but didn't throw up. I've felt clammy and dizzy a few times. (Possibly hypoglycemic?)
I honestly feel like it's changing how I feel about food. I don't want to eat empty carbs, anywhere near as much. Because I feel like they make me feel sick. I'm eager to have more, smaller meals. I'm eager to have protein.
I had previously done a keto diet, except maybe I wasn't really in ketosis? It was medically supervised, doing New Direction complete meal replacements. I lost a bunch of weight, but... gained it back.
So now semaglutide. Dr urging surgery as a possibility. I'm eager to not do surgery. Fingers crossed for Wegovy.
> I don't want to eat empty carbs, anywhere near as much. Because I feel like they make me feel sick.
I did a keto diet obsessively for a while and I still have a psychological revulsion to drinking coke or eating cake even a year later. Those sorts of things are long term wins.
I wish I got to this stage where people lose their cravings. While I'm at home I can control my diet pretty well, but as soon as there's junk food in front of me I look like a pig. And I've lost like 30 pounds, to put it into perspective.
I don't think the cravings go away exactly; you just layer a mild (defensive?) eating disorder on top. For example, when I eat valueless empty carbs, the waves of depression & the feeling of dread in the pit of my stomach prevent me from even tasting it or enjoying it. Winning...?
It's a strange, thin line to walk. Trans fats are unhealthy in any quantity, so I refuse to eat them. But they are still (secretly) all over the place, so in practice it looks a lot like an eating disorder.
It's easy to take it too far, but "just because you're paranoid, does not mean they're not out to get you."
I'd count that as the cravings stopping. I feel just as shitty afterwards when I eat junk food, both psychologically and physiologically, yet I can't resist to it when it's readily available.
As a data point: under carb restriction and fasting, I won't think about food at all until I happen to eat some threshold number of carbs, or I get actual hunger (shaking, weakness, headache --- usually around 20 hours in). Once I cross that carb threshold, I'll be snacky until I go to sleep.
People have different metabolic situations, but if you haven't tried fasting+restriction, it's pretty interesting.
(More seriously: if I'm careful about macros with, like, a late lunch, I'm usually good for the rest of the day. If I make an omelette at 3-4PM, I'm probably not eating another meal that day.)
Hmm, yeah, I guess I should really measure my after-dinner spurts to really gauge it. When I went hardcore and used https://www.carbmanager.com/ (I'm pretty new to this) I was surprised by the average carb/etc intake, both lows and highs.
I'm a strong believer in being able to eat enough to become satiated without overdoing the negative macros. So it's mostly a matter of finding the right stuff to eat in those moments.
Oh yeah, I wasn't really expecting it to be a general rule. I just built up "carbs = evil" so much in my head I developed a physical distaste for it, but I doubt most other people would.
My keto diet was chocolate protein shakes, protein bars, and powdered soups. New Direction it's called. 3 meals, 2 snacks a day. 128 oz of water a day.
It worked great as a way to lose weight. And for people who need to lose weight to prepare for surgery, I still think it's a neat program.
But I was just not equipped to survive returning to normal foods. And stress.
Wait til someone you love develops anorexia or a similar eating disorder (they may already have and you may not know it), and then you will think of "psychological revulsion to X food" in an entirely different light.
Be careful. You'd be amazed at what harm the brain can do to the body.
Thought experiment: A drug* that reduces people's weight and massively boosts physical fitness with no negative side effects is discovered. The discoverer of that drug declines to patent it, making it a cheap generic available everywhere. What would your reaction be?
Take a moment to consider what your reaction is before continuing.
...
The comments I'm reading here are diverse and fascinating. Weight loss, diet, and fitness are almost quasi-religious issues that people tend to have strong and personal reactions to. The unfit are desperate for a solution, especially an easy one. The very fit subconsciously resent the notion that people could achieve, with a pill, what they have achieved through discipline and hard work (or genetic luck). Others are keen to point out diverse evils of modern society that they believe are the true culprits which must be tackled instead of masking their effect with a pill.
Nutrition and fitness are classic examples of pseudo-science. Studies that would meet the bare minimum standards of scientific rigour in any other field are practically impossible. Getting a statistically significant sample of people to go on special diets or exercise regimens long term is just not feasible. Whenever an "expert" makes a tentative statement on what they think might be the case, media picks it up and amplifies it. Butter is bad for you. Butter is good for you. Blueberries are superfood. Keto diets. Crossfit. etc. Countless "experts", often with no credentials and no compelling data, are happy to write best-selling self-improvement books. They assume that what works for them (or didn't work, but seems like it should have) will work for everyone. Everyone wants to know how to be healthy, fit, and happy, so there is insatiable demand for books that are, by scientific standards, pure spit-balling.
Then medicine and drug research, which are legally required to be at last somewhat scientific but are always profit-motivated, enter the fray. They can prove a drug meets safety standards and quantify certain specific effects, but interactions with the pseudo-science of the greater health industry eventually become unavoidable.
Perhaps the first step to becoming more objective about drugs like this is to recognize that we really aren't.
*a hypothetical one, not the one being discussed here
Let me tell you, the number of thin people I've met who got there through discipline and hard work is vanishingly small compared to those genetically blessed. This is probably why it's such an appealing delusion -- who doesn't want the world to think they're disciplined and hardworking, instead of just lucky?
I don't think it's so malicious as you make it out: being thin seems like the default option, because that's how it was for most of human history and because you can't become fat without lifting the fork yourself and putting the food in your mouth. That obesity could be a disease questions our notions of free-will and the cascading questions that come along with that are quite uncomfortable.
How do you know they got it through being "genetically blessed" and not just...putting the fork down? In my experience a lot of skinny people don't outwardly signal that they're "dieting" because they're literally always dieting.
Being able to easily put the fork down / always dieting is the genetic blessing. Some people maintain a low weight with almost no effort, while the genetically unlucky seem to be hardwired to always be craving food & would subjectively suffer a lot more to eat like the naturally skinny.
I'm full (and would get nauseated if I continued eating) with an amount of food that would leave my sibling still feeling constant hunger pangs... the feeling of "fullness" here is the genetic/hormonal blessing
People who stay "fit" and hit a lot are the opposite of lucky, they probably have thyroid issues or other similar issues that will cause more serious problems down the road.
People who think they're lucky are obese with a food addiction problem
> Nutrition and fitness are classic examples of pseudo-science
I think it's pretty well agreed upon in the medical community (and proven) that a healthy diet (lots of fruit and vegetables, not too much sugar, etc) and regular exercise leads to better health. It's not pseudo-science. Neither is the statement that consuming more calories than you burn will make you put on weight.
Conclusions: Ingestion of 3 g cinnamon reduced postprandial serum insulin and increased GLP-1 concentrations without significantly affecting blood glucose, GIP, the ghrelin concentration, satiety, or GER in healthy subjects.
If anyone wants to try this, make sure you're NOT using what's usually passed off as cinnamon in America (Cassia), you want the real thing (Ceylon) -- and from a vendor you can trust. That amount of cassia cinnamon is likely to cause liver damage: https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cinnamon-coumarin-liver-...
As someone who is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), I'd say to be careful of the most commercially available cinnamon that are meant to be used with food and tea too, because they may be flavored to dial down the otherwise strong taste/aroma of cinnamon.
I know because one of my friends has a cinnamon farm, and what he makes at his place is nothing compared to the cinnamon I could buy from supermarkets when I was living in the Netherlands. Look for Sri Lankan markets if you are looking for unaltered stuff.
I'm 58, have type II diabetes, and BMI over 30, which is the criterion for NHS Scotland to offer semaglutide (currently in the formulation Rybelsus, which is a once-a-day tablet rather than an injection).
I've been on Semaglutide for 6 months now. Weight is down from 97kg to 83kg, blood HbA1C is down into pre-diabetes levels. (Also, my knees don't hurt!)
The down side of semaglutide:
1. Continuous low-grade nausea, as in, "am I going to throw up?" levels of stomach upset. Feeling nauseous for six months is No Fun Whatsoever.
2. Appetite suppression: it's like a chemical gastric band. My stomach capacity is way down. It makes family meal planning pretty much impossible: it makes the rare celebratory restaurant meal difficult (I'm limited to either two starter-sized portions or a main portion, and expect to leave some on the plate or feel bloated for 12-18 hours afterwards).
3. Muscle loss, not just fat loss. There's a pandemic surge and the health service here is in crisis so I'm not going to the swimming pool (my main form of exercise -- low joint impact). Consequently I'm not getting enough exercise. I have noticed that on semaglutide you lose weight from all tissues -- not just white adipose, so I'm losing muscle density as well. (New Year's Resolution: once the current COVID peak passes, go back to the pool during off-peak hours.)
Upshot: I'm going to persist for a while longer then when the weight loss slows off I'll talk to my GP about a medication review and maybe reducing the dosage to a maintenance level (in hope of keeping the benefits and reducing the side-effects). I would not recommend this medication to someone who is only a bit overweight -- it's a first-generation GLP-1 agonist, and like H2 antagonists in the 1970s and 1980s there will be a deluge of me-too drugs over the next few years that are cheaper/better/have fewer side-effects. If you can wait, wait.
I think it's awesome that there's a new use for these drugs. However, obesity kills slowly, when it kills. Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease kill more quickly if not under control. These drugs keep diabetes under control..and diabetics like my wife are unable to get their meds because people are buying these off the shelf to lose weight.
I don't pretend to know the solution, but I do think drug availability should be prioritized to those who need it the most, not those who can pay the most (the weight loss brand of the same drug is being marketed for 2x-5x the cost of the diabetic brand, or so I've been told).
> Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease kill more quickly if not under control. These drugs keep diabetes under control..and diabetics like my wife are unable to get their meds because people are buying these off the shelf to lose weight.
This seems to be a short term problem, and the solution is to simply make more of the drug to match demand.
Why wouldn't it? At $1300 a month, this is going to be a massive business for these companies.
I read a statement from Novo Nordisk to their investors where they said they simply underestimated demand for the drugs. They expected a slow uptake and instead received an explosive one. They are working hard to increase production.
If "Capitalism" involved the conscious coordination of all industry to maximize consumption, perhaps not. But in the terms of, raise money to buy a factory, have factory produce goods, sell goods, there seems to be a huge market for these, quite expensive, goods.
edit: You could even argue, in a conspiratorial mind, that by getting people addicted to sugar ($0.0002 / mg) in order to then get them addicted to a drug that costs ($10/mg) is peak "Capitalism"
> edit: You could even argue, in a conspiratorial mind, that by getting people addicted to sugar ($0.0002 / mg) in order to then get them addicted to a drug that costs ($10/mg) is peak "Capitalism"
Oh you absolutely could argue that. That's pretty much right on the money. It doesn't require conspiratorial up-front planning. Just a tragedy of the commons in an environment of capitalistic incentives without the necessary constraints around it.
I note the reverse applies: my dad was prescribed Metformin for diabetes, and began to lose weight at a significant rate to the point where it became unhealthy.
> the weight loss brand of the same drug is being marketed for 2x-5x the cost of the diabetic brand, or so I've been told
This is good news (probably?), but wanted to chime in with a tangent.
Also going to preface this by saying I have struggled with weight my entire life and have lost and gained substantial weight through diet alone, always gaining it back and then some — but I think I found something that has worked for me and I have been reflecting on what I wish I was told a long time ago.
It's not necessarily a problem to be "obese", meaning you can have extra fat on top of muscle but also be metabolically healthy. In those cases, the extra weight is just causing your calfs to be huge.
Instead of focusing on getting skinny, I started focusing on getting strong. All of a sudden diet was a supplemental tool to this goal, and not the main thing. I just made sure to eat more protein, and if I had a "bad day" of eating, I chalked it up to my body having more energy to synthesize new muscle :) Before a bad day would "undo" days of suffering on an energy deficit, and I would just give up. But if you frame it as: look, you have struggled your entire life to be 'thin', when in reality, your ability to be obese was a hidden superpower. Stop fighting it and lift weights, you were probably _made_ for this!
In this context I'm weirdly happy with my genetics? there are so many "hard gainers" that do everything in their power to put on 10bs so they can gain muscle. I'm gaining muscle without hardly trying. How many other obese, inactive people are like me and would respond amazingly to resistance training ALONE as well?
I focused on strength training and protein for a long time when I started, that was fun and easy, and my body composition started to change. Then I started to notice the changes, and now I have purposeful short-duration "cuts" in my routine and it seems like at some point I'll eventually not be obese.
Just trying to say that I wonder what would happen if people were told, "hey, you don't need to diet right now, just come in and train twice a week and eat more protein". Of course "energy toxicity" is absolutely real, but lean body mass can improve health markers A LOT before worrying about that.
This is really interesting. The idea of intentionally putting on weight terrifies me because I worked so hard in college to lose weight.
What does your plan look like long-term? Are you just going to keep gaining muscle and working out for the rest of your life, or do you plan to stop?
Obviously your TDEE is going to go up with more muscle. I wonder if there's a stable point where you can eat a 'normal' (read: not protein heavy) diet while working out, so that muscle is only maintained.
For the first 6 months I basically didn't worry too much about diet, except getting more protein and working extremely hard on my two workouts (which has since expanded to 3 workouts a week).
What happened was I put on a ton of muscle, and actually lost some weight... in the end I was 12lbs lighter, which doesn't seem like a lot but with the amount of muscle is EXTREMELY noticeable.
For me, seeing my body get more stronger and more muscular was a revelation, it's really fun to see the growth in those areas, much more than suffering to get "skinny fat". So now I'm actually working 4-6 week stints of weight loss into my program where I target 2lbs of fat loss week, while keeping the training intensity high (with lower volume to combat fatigue) to maintain the muscle I have built. I'll follow that with 2-3 months of maybe a slight surplus in calories to build (which comes with some fat gain). A few cycles of that and I'll be golden :)
From a health span and longevity standpoint, having lean body muscle is absolutely crucial for aging, and it's something I plan to not stop doing, even if I fall off the nutrition wagon completely, I'll at least be increasing my bone density and muscle mass which will counteract a lot of whatever bad food habits I'm doing at the time.
The cool thing about muscle vs just pure weight loss, is that muscle isn't super hard to maintain once you have it. The amount of stimulus you need to keep the muscle, especially in an energy balance or surplus environment is surprisingly small it turns out. So to me it's much more rewarding than a crash diet that can be completely erased and then-some in a matter of months.
I wish I had this frame of mind a long time ago, it has personally helped me tremendously.
I too found this valuable, I dropped 15-20kg doing this 5 years ago and slowly put it back on due to health problems. I’ve found recently that even cardio works - if I exercise, I don’t want to waste the effort by eating shitty food, if I do have a bad day or two (Xmas period) then it feels like a bank loan I must pay off before the interest kicks in.
At a risk of being ignorant: Isn’t obesity a function of calories intake and calories burn rate? If so, why do we even need a drug for that? What should a possible drug target here? Assuming no changes in behaviour and thus a continued steady daily caloric surplus, would it even work?
At a really fundamental level, yes, it boils down to calories in versus calories out. However, in practice it's more complicated than that, partially for psychological reasons.
Anyone will lose significant weight on a strict enough diet. Unfortunately, severe calorie restriction does things to your metabolism -- basically, your body notices there's not enough food, and tries to slow everything down so that your existing stores will last as long as possible. This (a) isn't good for you, since major organs are having to limp along, and (b) means your diet gets less effective, as "calories out" aggressively shrinks. There's evidence that this lasts for a fair while after a diet stops, making it really easy to regain weight.
Then, psychologically, most people have a hard time sticking with any sort of long term diet. Unless you have an abnormally low hunger response, ignoring feeling hungry all the time (even just a little bit) is very hard. Cheating on your diet is very alluring, and your body gives you all the rewards for doing things that feel like they're avoiding you slowly starving to death.
The latter point is where these drugs come in. By suppressing hunger signals, dieting suddenly becomes easy, removing the escalating willpower requirement. (Honestly, I'd worry about whether you'd still suffer the metabolic effects of calorie restriction even if you're not noticing the hunger, but hopefully that's being studied and they're only prescribed along with a solid nutritional plan...)
> Anyone will lose significant weight on a strict enough diet. Unfortunately, severe calorie restriction does things to your metabolism
Who said anything about "strict" or "severe calorie restriction" ?
To loose weight a person need only regularly eat 100 or 200 calories less than their daily requirement. For many who are obese, we're talking about having one less can of coke per day, or one less slice of a whole pizza or less ice cream every day.
A severely obese person can perfectly well eat McDonald's every single day, and eat more calories than a regular gym junkie and STILL lose weight!
Yes, your instinct is correct, you have vastly oversimplified it in an unhelpful way. The body is not an energy equation to be balanced.
The desire to eat is driven by our hormones and these are not easily overridden by willpower. In fact, study after study shows that willpower is insufficient for most people. Hunger is produced by a complex set of factors that we do not fully understand. What we eat and how we live plays a big part in how hungry we feel.
Calories should not be counted like some fungible currency. Each food is a complex and poorly understood cocktail of organic chemistry. Food is not processed by the body in the same way or at the same speed. In the most simple sense, unprocessed whole foods digest the slowest and provide the most even energy to the body, while highly processed food is digested quickly and leaves you hungry again soon. And above all else, fiber is the most amazing thing that can be in your food to regulate your digestion and make you feel more full.
And the consumption of energy is also not a matter of willpower to go to the gym. The body regulates is caloric burn to suit its environment, again, based on a complex and poorly understood web of signals. But in simple terms, trying to eat less can also caus your body to go into a "low power mode" where you burn less energy, ultimately being counterproductive.
The magic of this drug is that is hijacks one of the important hormone pathways involved in hunger and causes you to eat less calories without a single conscious thought. If proven out as safe and effective, it could be the silver bullet in an obesity epidemic that has never had any easy solutions before.
It's very important to consider "metabolic rate" in these considerations. I have been nearly under-weight my entire life (I'm in my 60s) and I've eaten as much high-calorie food I've felt similarly, usually a large amount (generally consuming the most any gathering I'm at, etc, eating three meal a day, etc).
The one thing I've always done is avoid foods with added sugar and in general processed food. There's good evidence that the consumption of "ultra-processed" food is associated with the obesity epidemic and that these food are what people weight-maintenance processes out of balance.
Given this, adding a drug to solve that problem might not be a panacea. What other bad effects could result from a strong drug plus a crap diet? We'll start another mass experiment to find, I suppose.
I am very much not talking about willpower. I am saying it is NOT about willpower.
And sure, there is an energy equation here thermodynamically, but it is unhelpful. It would be something like:
Calories in * X = Calories consumed * Y + Fat stored * Z
Where X, Y and Z are unknown and barely controllable factors related to hunger, type of food, digestion, microbiome, hormones, genetics, metabolism, environment, society and so on.
Evolution had no care about the understanding of applied physics when we came up the evolutionary tree. Understanding physics here almost has no effect on our behavior.
Instead look at the evolutionary incentives. If you starve you are going to die and it is going to fucking hurt the entire time you are dying.
With that one line of information you now understand not only humans but the vast majority of animal life on this planet and why almost all animals get fat if you leave a full food dish around. We are optimized to avoid starving at all costs. When winter comes you could die. When the summer drought comes you could die. Your animal brain is yelling at you to pack on the pounds now that the eating is good because the lean times are coming. Our animal brain has no understanding or concept that times are good, we need to slow down. It has never been a primary evolutionary driver.
Notably, this is (presumably) why our bodies often think it's a very good trade-off to turn everything down instead of burning fat. Fat is important long-term storage that might be what gets us through the winter starvation, and storing/burning it is a lossy process -- turning down the tap on our energy usage for a little while, however, might be all we need to get through a lean few weeks.
you can tell these people have never tried to bulk and cut cycle, if you guys start lifting weights or even taking stimulants it becomes beyond obvious that it is a simple input/output sort of thing. The psychological, I saw someone mention the hypothalamus part, that must be the real difficult thing.
in a banal sense this is true but the reality is less clear than the CICO folks would have you think. there are regulatory functions in the method for energy consumption (basal metabolic rate is not constant) and microbiota have a substantial effect both through their own metabolism and endocrine effects
It's the other way round: the point of the drug is to change behavior. By changing the hunger response.
The hunger response is not quite as low-level as, say, the breathing response, but you'll notice that it's very difficult to choose to stop or reduce your breathing below a level that your body will accept, and after a very short while your conscious will will simply be overridden.
Modern nutrition science has found that each person, at any given time, has a "metabolic setpoint". This is basically a target weight that their endocrine system is trying to keep them at. There's a feedback loop, where below this weight hunger hormones will nudge them to eat more and metabolic hormones will lower caloric expenditure (lowering body temperature, sleeping longer, fidgeting more). And vice versa above this weight.
Most people will have a +/- 25 lbs window, where the feedback loop is minimal. But once they step outside this window the nudges become increasingly strong. This is why it's generally easy to lose 15 lbs, but really hard to lose 50 lbs. Also why many can lose weight under very targeted lifestyle interventions, but rapidly snap back as soon as they relax even a little bit. Finally it's why the vast majority of normal weight people don't need to count calories, their metabolic setpoint intuitively matches their appetite to their caloric needs.
"Eat fewer calories" is technically a solution, in the same way that "stop drinking alcohol" is a solution for an alcoholic. The problem is someone who has an obese-level metabolic setpoint will literally be ravenous 24/7 once they get down to healthy weight. If you haven't experienced this yourself, try fasting for 48 hours, putting out a bowl of chips on the table in front of you, and resist the urge to eat even one while you try to do something else. That is what it's like to be an obese person trying to lose a large amount of weight.
GLP-1 agonists work by short circuiting the hormones that regulate hunger. It's basically the equivalent of moving your metabolic setpoint 100 pounds lower. The need to explicitly count calories no longer exists, because your appetite will naturally limit itself well below the point of caloric expenditure.
> Modern nutrition science has found that each person, at any given time, has a "metabolic setpoint". This is basically a target weight that their endocrine system is trying to keep them at.
Citation? This goes against everything I've heard from credentialed experts and against my own experience as well. For one thing, it's unclear how you'd explain the weight gain of the median person in the western world over the last 30 years. For another, it's very strange that people like me (previously) gained 5-10 pounds a year, if our bodies were supposedly trying to keep us at a particular set point.
Metabolic set points can and will drift over time. So if somebody starts out with a setpoint at 22 BMI, they might naturally be anywhere from 21-24 BMI at any given time. As food in the environment becomes more hyper-palatable and calorically dense, people are more likely to "settle" at the upper end of this range. Over time spending more time at the upper end of one's range will "nudge" up the setpoint gradually and continuously.
But the point is this is a slow and continuous process that occurs over years or even decades. Discontinuously making a big shift in weight, up or down, is basically impossible. Which is why despite very high rates of obesity, it's basically unheard of for someone to gain 50 lbs in a short period of time. Almost all weight gain takes the form of 5 lbs one year, 5 lbs another year, and so on.
I would look for studies on ghrelin (the hunger hormone) - lose weight it goes up, gain weight it goes down - that's the set point behaviour.
The phenomena of an ever increasing set point I believe is down to periods of willful over-indulgence that overruns the power of our hormonal homeostasis to recover from so it settles higher than it started when pushed too hard.
Christmas, holidays, times of stress, home-baking passions (my downfall), liquid calories and ultra calorie dense eating-for-leisure that don't stimulate our sense of fullness early enough to stop.
The cruelty is that it's a hell of a lot easier to eat when not hungry than to push a plate away when jonesing for it, so it keeps going up.
People have trouble dealing with hunger because we frame it all wrong in the western convention. I'm hungry, I should eat a little something, is what most people think. An ascetic from the east who fasts is not immune to the pain of hunger, they just understand that hunger is a sensation that is neither good nor bad, and what they choose to do with that sensation is up to them, and they are not bound to it and do not have to satiate it right then.
I imagine if a prescribed diet from a doctor also came with mental health counseling, that overcoming the satiation issue could be a lot easier for more people. It really is a frame of mind issue that prevents most peoples weight loss from being more successful.
It really is not a frame of mine. We know this because GWAR genome studies find that the SNPs most correlated with obesity are expressed in the hypothalamus, which has nothing to do with higher thought.
Its not like you black out and the chips are in your mouth though, to act on hunger requires conscious effort. That is what the ascetics are practicing, resisting these primal urges because they can be resisted by the higher thinking brain.
And if ascetics were even a significant portion of the human population I would say that would be a useful measure. Instead their numbers are low enough that they are a statistical outlier along with those people that seem to eat as much as they want and not gain weight.
The fact is you can choose to starve yourself to death if you put your mind to it. I would counter that with 'why the hell would you want to'. Wasting a huge portion of my brain time to tell myself (oh yea, don't eat) seems like a massive waste of time and energy.
>to act on hunger requires conscious effort
Does it? I'd like to develop a test where I starve a large people for a little while. Then while I distract them with something I put some easy to eat like chips in their peripheral view and see how many of them realize they started consuming the chips. My ethicist says I can't do this unfortunately, but I imagine that a significant fraction of the group will not realize when they started eating them.
>Wasting a huge portion of my brain time to tell myself (oh yea, don't eat) seems like a massive waste of time and energy.
That's not what the ascetics come to learn. They aren't even thinking about the hunger at all when they are fasting. The sensation is barely registered in their thought. Plus even with your example for those people who do not realize what they are doing with the chips, if you are serious about dieting you wouldn't set yourself up for such temptation like having a bag of tempting candy perhaps in plain view. You'd do what people who quit smoking do and throw away the junk food or otherwise get it out of easy access. Then you've given yourself another layer of friction that requires even more conscious effort to overcome: if you want to act on your craving for chips, you now have to go to the store and buy them.
>if you are serious about dieting you wouldn't set yourself up for such temptation
But that's the point. You live in a world full of this stuff and a huge portion of people do not have the option to setup the world in such a manner they can avoid temptations being around them.
People that fail to quit smoking have the biggest problem when other smokers offer them cigs. And smokers are a 'small' portion of the population, we all eat. That's why we came up with things like bupropion and varenicline so people can quit smoking. Most people tried and failed to quit smoking multiple times.
As someone from an Eastern country with a strong ascetic tradition, I find this framing unhelpful. Yes, our culture places a strong emphasis on fasting, but is simultaneously also experiencing its own obesity epidemic - and it's not because we're adopting a western framework around hunger. More and more people can now afford high calorie ingredients in our native cuisines that were a luxury a few decades ago. When I was a kid, things like ghee were prohibitively expensive, and I grew up seeing it as a special treat consumed sparingly. I never had to develop self-control around expensive, high satiety food because access was self limiting. If all we could afford to eat daily was rice and lentils, it was hard to be morbidly obese. My generation has faced an obesity epidemic, partly due to easy access to rich foods my ancestors didn't have but my culture and cuisine valorizes. Industrialization of food production has made access much more egalitarian, but we have yet to develop the collective restraint needed.
These drugs modulate your hormones to reduce appetite and cravings for unhealthy foods. When people lose weight the normal way, their endocrine system sends out a “you are starving, eat” hormone response that is extremely difficult to overcome and success requires 100% compliance for the rest of your life.
Success in adjusting diet does not require '100% compliance for the rest of your life'. It requires serious changes yes, but even frequent slips as part of a largely altered diet won't discount it. This perspective - as well as being factually inaccurate - feeds into shame spirals and negative self efficacy. It's also true that virtuous circles can be built on diet and exercise, replacing the endorphin lift provided by sugar / carbohydrate load; and in the longer term homeostasis can be achieved at a healthier weight. It is difficult, but it's absolutely not as impossible as this comment implies.
I think people who think it's "just that simple" have never seriously tried to starve their body. It's truly incredible how far the human brain will go to get food into your mouth when it thinks you're trying to starve it.
> Isn’t obesity a function of calories intake and calories burn rate? If so, why do we even need a drug for that?
Because calorie intake is substantially impacted by things like satiety. As the article's subtitle heavily hints at, "A class of drugs that quash hunger" is beneficial in moving that bit of the equation.
I understand, but appetite/hunger seems to be just a part of the issue. The second part being people (myself included) using food to comfort ourselves. I feel bad -> I seek tasty food to comfort myself, even if I am not hungry. The whole candy-market is built around. How are drugs to address this?
Indeed, we need an economic policy, not an economic drug. I’m totally for behavioural policies for obesity, such as don’t buy sweets, go for a walk each day, or make sure to eat vegetables each time you are hungry, etc.
> I’m totally for behavioural policies for obesity, such as don’t buy sweets, go for a walk each day, or make sure to eat vegetables each time you are hungry, etc.
So are physicians, and most patients. It's just a lot harder than it sounds to sustain. There's the old adage that "the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results"; attempting to cure obesity by telling patients "exercise more, eat less" is precisely that.
This is too absolutist. People aren't immutable, unable to control themselves at all without drugs. Anyone who gives up smoking without a patch has to decide to never pick up a cigarette again. They may have "given up" a few times before, and the last time they succeeded. By your logic they shouldn't have tried more than once.
> But if we check back after five or 10 years, there's a good chance they will have put the weight back on. Only about five per cent of people who try to lose weight ultimately succeed, according to the research. Those people are the outliers, but we cling to their stories as proof that losing weight is possible.
> In a meta-analysis of 29 long-term weight loss studies, more than half of the lost weight was regained within two years, and by five years more than 80% of lost weight was regained.
"Just eat right and exercise more" may work for a small number of people, but for most it's setting folks up to fail. It's good that we're starting to get medication options that can help folks achieve those changes; bariatric surgery works, but it's a big deal for the body.
Bariatric surgery also tends to require a period of weight loss beforehand as well as extensive behavior modification afterward. These new drugs should make that process much easier.
Well, to be clearer, the first is just an article, but it talks about obese people, not all people. That's what I mean. Obese people are not all people, and studies of weight loss in obesity are on a few obese people.
Take a 'large enough' population of animals and give them an all you can eat buffet for months. What percentage of them becomes overweight? It won't be 100%, but the numbers should be pretty high. I have a very strong feeling (sadly no evidence, they won't let me trap random people in cages for months at a time to test this) that the human numbers and the animal numbers will look very much alike.
My what? I was countering an absolutist position; I wasn't presenting my own.
And yes, animals can be made to starve to death as well, if you give them a bar to push that gives a dopamine hit. That doesn't mean we should shrug and say, "Well, it's inevitable that I'm going to die now, because I failed once" the first time we fail to refrain from getting such a hit.
There is some evidence to show that obesity has been rising independently of behavioral changes (even though they do contribute), due to deterioration in the food quality. Look at obesity rates amongst animals for example, especially wild animals that feed off of human food.
Because many people just aren't able to get that ratio to a point that they're at a healthy weight (for numerous reasons - behavioral, medical, etc.).
"Assuming no changes in behavior" doesn't make sense, because the drug makes people feel full after a smaller amount of calories and thus changes behavior.
Don’t you ever eat sweets despite of not being hungry? I don’t think the issue is people overdosing rice or legumes because they are so hungry. The issue seems to me like quick comfort foods that we eat not to get full but because they just feel so good in our mouths. I don’t think I’ve ever eaten ice cream out of hunger:)
Yeah, I agree with all of that, but I would differentiate slightly between not being hungry and being full. I snack when I'm not necessarily hungry, but I don't snack right after I've eaten a full meal and am actively full.
Anyway, semantics of hunger/fullness aside, the effect of the drug is behavioral - people taking it do end up eating significantly less, which leads to substantial weight loss.
Also it is much easier to pass those snacks and other stuff when you are full or not hungry. If this is consistent state, it can also effect how accessible at other times snacks and such are.
We evolved as hunter gatherers and have been hunter gatherers for most of our history. Continuously moving while collecting resources, even into old age. Today, most people don't continuously move. They go from bed, to work, to the couch at home, then to bed, with as little physical movement as they can possibly do in between.
Maybe if more people at least simulated how much a hunter gatherer moved a day, we'd see a much healthier population versus continuing this sedentary behavior that we have not evolved to do while remaining healthy. Agriculture which enabled a sedentary lifestyle for many people did not happen long enough ago for our species to be well adapted to this behavior; it was only 10,000 years ago, while our ancestors had been hunting and gathering for at least 2 million years, likely foraging even longer still.
It's like treating an addiction by telling the addict "it's ok to have some, just pinkie swear you won't overdo it."
People who are obese or grossly obese often aren't just eating a "little extra" here and there. Imagine more like "extra pizza a day" or "eat a cake once a week because that seems like a good idea".
1Kg of human fat is around 8000kcals give or take.
50lbs is 22Kg. 176000kcal. It's 586x "extra slices of pizza", almost two years of overeating every day.
That's exactly what I said. 300 cals indefinitely. I obviously didn't mean you eat one slice of pizza and gain 50lbs.
It's easy to say "put down the pizza," but pizza is just an example.
300 calories is also 1/4 a cup of rice (50 cals), 1/3 service of chicken (100 cals) an egg (78 cals), a teaspoon of olive oil (40 cals), and a toast (75 cals).
There are lot of reasons its hard to cut weight. Measuring calorie intake to 300 calories is hard enough. But also, its easy to eat a bit more at each meal if you are hungry (and it adds up).
When you are so fat your metabolic maintenance rate hovers around 4000 kcal per day you lose all sense of what to eat and after years of over eating old habits die hard.
On paper dieting is the easiest thing. You literally need to watch one hole and it is right under your nose, but in practice it isnt that easy.
Appetite is great way to control obesity - if you dont want to eat you wont
I had an opinion that this all sounded silly but then watched the 60 Minutes segment on the drugs and what the doc talked about is, in my layman's recollection, the body remembers its weight and wants to get back to that which is why a lot of people end up losing and then gaining most of it back. Genetics play a role in this, I forget how but something to do with what these drugs help change.
I wonder if rather than a placebo they had a control group also try to lose with caloric restriction and defined plateaus where they maintain a weight for some period of time. For example instead of lose 1lb/week for 52 weeks, lose 1lb/week for 12 weeks, maintain weight for 8 weeks, repeat. Maybe the element of the body "remembering" a weight happens when you plateau at a weight for a while? Kinda like giving the body some time to adjust as you lose.
Other than this is mostly useless in itself.... Calorie restriction really only works well under medical supervision (multiple studies show people suck at calorie counting and avoiding calorie intake). Once the supervision is over, most people gain the weight back.
I have a feeling it may happen with this shot too, and if so I foresee it will have primary treatment to lose weight then a secondary to maintain status.
There already are quite effective weight-loss drugs but they're not across-the-board medically-approved for that effect (with some exceptions) because they're also drugs of abuse, namely the cocaine and amphetamine drug families. However, many obese people get around this by getting an ADHD diagnosis (any quick search will reveal that 'obesity and ADHD are highly correlated' due to this phenomenon). The WebMD blurb is fairly accurate:
> "Sometimes the medicines most often used to treat ADHD can cause weight loss. Stimulant drugs like methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (Adderall) make you less hungry and make your body burn calories faster than usual. Some of them are even used to help people lose weight or treat binge eating.Oct 26, 2021"
"The effects of amphetamine on body weight and energy expenditure" (1992) Jones et. al
However, in many cases if people stop taking such drugs they can regain the weight, and the drugs can be addictive if dose regimens are not carefully managed (which doesn't seem to be a problem with ADHD). Note also these drugs are much cheaper than this new class, likely by a factor of 10.
In the long run, new behaviors (quitting alcohol and sugary foods, increasing exercise, reducing overall calorie intake, etc.) are probably needed for persistant long-term effects on reducing obesity.
I believe you are correct, but that leaves several possibilities for the drugs to be effective. They could work by either causing you to lose interest in food/improving impulse control so that you eat less, or by increasing your calorie burn rate, or by causing your body to absorb less calories from the same amount of food.
The big elephant in the room is where did everyone's endogenous GLP-1 peptide go? A similar elephant in the room is why is synthetic thyroid hormone to replace all the missing endogenous thyroid hormones such a high selling drug?
What in the environment is slowly poisoning everyone so their bodies don't work normally?
Here's a clue, one of hundreds in the medical literature:
There is a huge bias against anyone saying anything in food or otherwise causing anything more than a trivial negative health effect. Everyone says eat healthy, but there's so much more the government in the U.S could do to protect the average consumer from damaging unnecessary food additives. The EU is much better about these food additive issues.
Certainly it's one of the largest issues in society today.
We simply don't have much of an idea how the human hormone system works, or how it reacts to all the chemicals present in the "Standard American Diet."
> After decades of work, researchers are finally seeing signs of success: a new generation of anti-obesity medications that drastically diminish weight without the serious side effects that have plagued previous efforts.
…
> Nutter is concerned that people might start these treatments — whose side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, can be severe — to escape weight stigma, rather than to serve a true health need
So the side effects aren’t “serious” — they’re just potentially “severe”? I’m confused.
> to escape weight stigma, rather than to serve a true health need
This is an unfair framing by the researchers
For a while I worked in pharma on a drug program for a harmless* "ailment", nail fungus. What I learned is that some people suffer serious psychological consequences, such as marital issues or avoiding situations where they might be barefoot, like the beach. People who have it in their hands may avoid social situations all together, which is even worse and reduces life expectancy.
We have a natural cultural bias in this regard. It's not just the phantom of the opera: in films the hero usually has a clear complexion and the villain often does not (not always to the extent of Darth Vader of course). Now we understand more about disease etiology this bias is no longer helpful, and is in fact destructive.
Losing weight addresses true health needs (increased rates of cancer, cardiac issues etc) but weight stigma has important side effects as well.
* The various fungi that attack skin, scalp, nails etc eat a particular shape of squalene which some people make (referred to unfairly in the medical literature as a "squalene defect"). You're not going to catch it from another person -- there's a good chance you're breathing the spores right now. Either you're genetically predisposed or you're not. And all it does is munch on a tiny amount of your body and causes no other problem.
They're substantially less severe (and reversible, and more controllable) than the "your heart might stop" ones of the past generation of weight loss meds. (For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine)
Leaking medical jargon and mixing it with regular usage: "serious" means needing medical attention, "severe" means hospitalization/long-term disability or worse. They seem to be using medical "serious" and colloquial "severe", which gives the the appearance of reversing their meanings.
Subtly different subjects to those two sentences: the former is talking about the new generation of medications (i.e. the general concept of medications targeting this new receptor); while the latter is talking about one specific treatment (i.e. one specific medication, at one specific dosage, via one specific route of administration, at one specific interval.)
The side-effects of this particular treatment "can be severe", but that doesn't imply anything about the side-effects of any other treatment (combination of medication, dose, RoA, and interval) for drugs in this class. Heck, they could probably fix the nausea/vomiting just by making a pill that contains an adjunct anti-emetic like ondansetron, like they do for cancer drugs.
Have we actually studied if the weight loss is resulting in better health outcomes for the people in question? Outside of diabetics (there is evidence that significant weight loss can relieve the effects of type 2 diabetes), I would like to know if just weight loss benefits the cardiovascular system, blood pressure, etc. These aren't as intuitive as we'd like, for example, it turns out that low fat diets didn't make people less fat, and cholesterol-lowering medication doesn't reduce heart disease.
I'm hesitant to measure weight loss as a pure good in of itself because it isn't evident to me that just losing weight has a causative effect on reducing specific diseases.
My wife lost a hundred pounds via bariatric surgery; resting heart rate dropped by 20, cholesterol dropped into normal range, knee and hip pain disappeared, and it even helped the chronic migraine substantially.
We've got plenty of clear evidence that being significantly overweight has health impacts.
Yup. On a much lesser note, when I lost 10lbs I noticed acid reflux symptoms disappear and blood pressure was lowered. For someone that is borderline on need of medication, the doc basically said lose some weight and these issues could go away (for some time). Its incentive enough for me to keep losing so I can push off the major diseases until much later in life or never.
Yeah, there are a lot of published studies showing this is very impactful. Within certain thresholds, losing weight has been shown to be the biggest change to all cause mortality rates. If you are obese, the most impactful thing on health is losing weight. This obviously isn't true for people with very low BMIs, but there have been a lot of population level studies looking at all cause mortality.
What are the certain thresholds? Can we be more specific than lowered all-cause mortality, such as specific diseases we know have causal relationships with obesity specifically? I'm asking because I'm not that educated, but if you know there are studies showing e.g. purely losing weight with no lifestyle changes means less heart attacks, less joint replacements, less cancer, etc. please share.
Caveat: it's generally not possible to "lose weight with no lifestyle changes." Even taking anti-obesity drugs results in lifestyle changes along with the weight loss.
>it turns out that low fat diets didn't make people less fat
This is not a "turns out". Anyone who believed that just having a "low fat" diet will make them leaner, didn't really know how losing fat works. Fat is a macronutrient (and quite useful one) just making it lower tells you absolutely nothing on its own.
Wtf are you on? Of course losing weight results in a better life. If nothing else it will make moving a lot easier it doesn’t need to reduce any diseases if it does that is pure bonus
People don’t want to hear it, but we do nobody any favors by pretending this is more complicated than it is. It’s actually pretty simple. The solution is to adjust calories in vs calories out. Fast a few days a week. Cut out bread, sugar and other simple carbs.
We don’t help alcoholics or opioid addicts by enabling them with statements like “when not getting drunk isn’t enough…”
The pharma industry will enable addicts because it wants money. Fat people need love, though love, and a home without good tasting, or high calorie foods.
> The pharma industry will enable addicts because it wants money.
This is a little over-simplistic. The "pharma industry" is not a monolith, and is made up in large part by academics who love spending their time thinking about how to make the world better, and by doctors who have no conflict of interest, etc etc.
It is an industry. It must therefore be optimized to maximize shareholder value, roi, revenue, etc…
Gambling can be fun, and nothing wrong with casinos, but in the long run they are optimized for one thing. A casino that is not optimized for profit will disappear.
Same is true for the healthcare industry. If a corporation is not optimized to make money they disappear.
I think it’s valuable from a financial perspective to avoid casinos. I think it’s valuable from a health perspective to avoid drugs, to the extent possible. But, yes, casinos can be fun, and you can even profit from them if you play your cards right.
While I agree, you're right, nobody wants to hear it. There's no point telling people to have discipline, because discipline is not spread through strangers telling each other to have it. Someone either has the capacity to have discipline (instilled through upbringing or formative events), or they don't. These magic pills are for everyone who doesn't have discipline.
Maybe. I was fat. I believed various things I heard parroted about, “starvation diets don’t work,” and “it’s not healthy to skip meals.” There are too many of these to list.
I noticed skinny people tended to eat less and skip meals. I noticed bariatric surgery worked, for awhile.
I tried fasting. I’m now quite healthy. Exercise doesn’t help lose weight, but it can be a better way to change your biochemistry than eating tasty food. People should be told these 2 simple things, and none of the other stuff that doesn’t really help. It’s simple. Eat less.
We actually do often recognize that "just stop having problems" isn't usually useful advice for people with drug addiction, too. Ex. naltrexone for alcohol addiction, methadone for opioid addiction, etc. "Just stop having problems" is usually easy to say as an outside observer, but generally when someone's reward circuit is hijacked by addiction, it takes something more effective to rewire it. Sometimes sheer willpower is enough to exit the cycle, but usually it takes outside changes (drugs, environmental changes, effective therapy) to loosen the grip of addiction.
Jesus christ, why is nature quoting a psychologist in an article about biology?
> However, some researchers worry that these drugs play into some societies’ obsession with being thin. Body size isn’t always a good predictor of health. “I’m really hesitant to be excited about something that I think is potentially harmful from a weight stigma perspective”
Very little in health is unidimensional. Suppose, for example, the presence of an effective weight loss treatment caused an increase in suicide rate in those who fail to benefit from the drug or can't access it for some reason?
That's an important consequence to consider. One that often gets omitted. Many drugs - like blood pressure drugs - often have depression as a side effect but it gets overlooked.
My mother recently started taking these, and she doesn't have a very great mental health history to begin with. Do you have more information on this, and/or if this can somehow be mitigated?
Sometimes you can lower blood pressure with alternatives, like diet, excercise or relaxation techniques. Sometimes a simple diuretic can do the trick. I've heard many doctors say a diuretic should always be tried first.
It's also complicated by the fact that blood pressure is highly individual. There doesn't seem to be one level that is good for all.
yes. discuss with doctor. But, surprisingly, many doctors don't even address the issue. They just dispense the pills. Patients need to press the issue.
Ah yes, I wanted to arm her with some information (and I value a HN reference above a _more random_ internet source) about it so she can see with her doctor.
Doctors in Croatia tend to be very flippant with medications. This goes as far as pharmacies having to sometime refuse giving medications due to known adverse interactions (sometimes dangerous even). Apparently their software should warn them of this the same way pharmacies get alerted of it, but I guess they dont care?
I think they care. But moderate level depression is not even considered an interaction, so often it gets dismissed as an annoying side effect you just need to learn to live with. Often the patient themselves doesn't even recognize it as a consequence of the drug, it just becomes their reality.
The article specifically points out that the link between weight and health on its own is in question:
> Some researchers also worry that by offering a weight solution in societies that prize thinness, these drugs could also inadvertently reinforce the disputed link between excess weight and health. One study found that nearly 30% of people who are considered obese are metabolically healthy.
The abstract from that article also points out that a significant share of non-obese people are metabolically unhealthy:
> Nearly half of overweight individuals, 29% of obese individuals and even 16% of obesity type 2/3 individuals were metabolically healthy. Moreover, over 30% of normal weight individuals were cardiometabolically unhealthy.
Further, the way that study measures (cardio)-metabolic health is itself multi-dimensional:
> Using the blood pressure, triglyceride, cholesterol, glucose, insulin resistance and C-reactive protein data, population frequencies/percentages of metabolically healthy versus unhealthy individuals were stratified by BMI.
I think we may need to admit that weight is a low cost and highly visible variable which is a poor proxy for actual health and as in business, optimizing for the wrong metric will eventually lead to dysfunction.
Sure, I'll grant that BMI is not the end all be all metric of health, but its a hell of a strong indicator, and pretending that its okay for your health to be obese is farcical.
Maybe that paper just shows that BMI isn’t the best metric. For example, would the results look different if the participants were stratified by bodyfat%?
An earlier study looked at BF% vs BMI-based obesity definitions, when you adjust for fitness (as measured with a treadmill test). They compare the all-cause-mortality risk for normal weight + metabolically healthy vs obese (for each definition) metabolically healthy. When adjusting for fitness, the risks / hazard ratios are not significantly different.
I.e. if you do someone's bloodwork and a treadmill test, and they look metabolically normal, knowing whether their BF% is high (or if their BMI is high) doesn't seem to tell you more about whether they're going to die. If they're fat but fit, trying to lower their BMI or BF% doesn't seem to be about making them healthier.
If we're talking about interventions which might involve putting someone on medication with side effects for the rest of their lives, just do the extra tests! There's no reason to reduce the decision input variables to just "are they obese?" when better indicators are known.
The point of the quoted sentence from the psychologist was that people who aren't obese, but who are "large" ("Big and Tall", in the clothing phrasing) and who have body-dysmorphic disorder, might pursue this drug, and, due to being "large", get it prescribed — and that that's a bad thing, because they'd end up with an unhealthily-low BMI.
The taller you are, the larger your build can be + more mass you can carry while still having a very low body fat percentage. This is why BMI is normalized by height.
Someone who weighs 150lbs — but who is 6'8" — is actually underweight. To be that weight at that height, they'd have to have so little fat and muscle that they'd be positively scrawny-looking, and would be experiencing many of the same problems (e.g. always being cold, muscle spasms, brain fog, paresthesia from demyelination of nerves) that someone who is 5'8" and 90lbs does.
Someone who weighs 200lbs at 6'8" looks, and is, healthy; just like someone who weighs 140lbs at 5'8".
Strongly depends on how much they weight in the end and what is the price of weight loss. Loosing too much weight makes you less healthy, sometimes very damagingly so.
It also depends on what is the price of that weight loss. Quite a few diets make you loose weight and simultaneously make you much less healthy or less fit - because your body is missing nutricients it actually needs.
Obese doesn’t mean unhealthy. Correlation isn’t causation. There are many obese people who are extremely healthy. I for one have had no health issues of any sort, have great blood panels, and am in decent physical condition but sit stubbornly at a 31BMI. The only “issue” I face is psychological, and it’s rooted in precisely this statement you made.
> There are many obese people who are extremely healthy
I don't believe that's true. There are some cases (like powerlifters) who can be at an obese BMI but still have strong cardiovascular fitness, but unless you are in that narrow category, if you are obese you do not have strong aerobic fitness. 'Decent physical condition' alone belies that you are not 'extremely' healthy. Decently healthy maybe, but certainly not extremely. Even if you are still metabolically healthy, you are at increased risk for adverse long-term outcomes (source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24297192/). That is more than just a psychological issue, no matter how much you try to handwave it away.
Your belief in a fact is unnecessary. The issue with these studies is they don’t control for lifestyle and diet. The notion that you can not be fat while eating a high quality low calorie diet and exercising is simply false. A valuable study in this space would be measuring the impact of diet and exercise on health outcomes while holding BMI constant, then comparing across stripes.
In studies where diet and lifestyle are controlled for, metabolically health overweight are not at greater risk.
The issue is we are pointing to fatness and not diet and exercise. It’s causing people to seek ways to get thin assuming it’ll help. But some people are thin no matter what they do, some are fat. However there’s a correlation between poor lifestyle choices and being fat and good life style choices and being thin. This skews uncontrolled studies towards fat is bad even with good metabolic health, because having a good metabolic health but maintaining it with poor inputs will have a long term bad outcome.
In one of the reference below, the conclusion is:
(i) Higher fitness should be considered a characteristic of metabolically healthy but obese phenotype. (ii) Once fitness is accounted for, the metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, with a better prognosis for mortality and morbidity than metabolically abnormal obese individuals.
> The notion that you can not be fat while eating a high quality low calorie diet and exercising is simply false
You actually believe this shit? If you eat a calorie deficit, you will lose weight, full stop. 'High quality low calorie diet' is gobbledygook to make you feel better. You can eat absolute shit and lose weight if you eat appropriate portions. Or do you not believe in the conservation of energy?
> metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, with a better prognosis for mortality and morbidity than metabolically abnormal obese individuals
so, if you compare yourself only to obese people, you're healthier if you're metabolically healthy. And that is some kind of interesting scientific conclusion? Is this a study done exclusively by fat people to make themselves feel better?
> There are many obese people who are extremely healthy
I don't think that's true. However, some people can withstand bad diets. As an example, I had a morbidly obese uncle that ate copious quantities of bacon, white bread, and processed food, yet his blood work and lipid levels were always in the healthy range, which always surprised my family (my mother managed a clinical lab and did the bloodwork for my uncle).
My uncle eventually passed away after he became crippled after a bathroom fall due to his weight. He became depressed and committed suicide (he was a physician and had access to morphine). Overweight is always a health risk, even if your bloodwork is ok.
I didn’t say morbidly obese. Likewise, check my other comments on parallel replies for several studies showing cardiovascular fitness is the predictor for metabolically healthy obese people.
This is unfortunately completely untrue. Obesity, especially severe obesity, underlies the diabetes and heart disease epidemics. However obese people, particularly in the US and Western Europe, now represent a sufficiently large lobby (no pun intended) that there is significant public messaging parroting the 'healthy at any size' propaganda.
I didn’t say there is no level at which you’re clearly unhealthy. If you are obese because of unhealthy habits or lifestyle, this will impact your overall health. Being fat alone, with a healthy eating habit and lifestyle, is not indicative of a lack of health. Eating with abandon, especially of low quality food, and not exercising is what underlies the lack of health. It happens you also get fat doing this. People with a high metabolism that stay thin no matter what they eat or do still develop heart disease and diabetes.
Healthy at any size doesn’t mean someone who is morbidly obese is healthy - the strain on their heart is significant. But that’s true for any human of large size regardless of “what” constitutes their body mass. But the correlation is the fat goes with unhealthy diet and lifestyle. But not everyone who is fat is unhealthy.
They even discuss this in the article for goodness sakes.
In another comment I provided these references:
In one of the reference below, the conclusion is:
(i) Higher fitness should be considered a characteristic of metabolically healthy but obese phenotype. (ii) Once fitness is accounted for, the metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, with a better prognosis for mortality and morbidity than metabolically abnormal obese individuals.
The goal of that idea is to push for being being more healthy regardless of size, not to validate that you can become obese if you want with no downsides. It's basically "being obese and having issues dieting doesn't stop you from making healthy changes in other ways".
Yes. I’m fairly active. I do two one hour swimming sessions a week, a daily Tabata HIIT, and other activities in the week. I’ve no interest in becoming an iron man competitor, but I find the maintaining of decent cardio improves my mental well being considerably. I am personally fine with my weight - when I look at the extreme athletes in my family they all have a similar body makeup, and their body fat percentage stays constant even as they add muscle. Everyone in my family live into their 90’s without onset health issues. When I do medical histories with my GP it’s short and boring.
To say that an outcome is "unidimensionally a good thing" does not imply that all interventions that have that outcome as part of their outcomes, are good interventions.
(to say nothing as to the question of whether the outcome in question actually is unidimensionally a good thing)
I know that you are trying to make a point, but I think meth would be a viable treatment option for some people. Medically supervised and monitored. If you need to lose 100 lbs, it might be worth the other tradeoffs. For a short period of time.
Please stop stigmatizing adderall usage. Especially as a platitude. The stigma often prevents people who have ADHD from seeking things that alleviate it.
You're describing Adderall misuse and/or abuse and not Adderall's intended usage.
That would be like damning steroids because some body builders misuse them to increase muscle mass regardless of the medical benefits when used in the appropriate contexts.
Making ADHD a joke is hurting millions of people who really have an issue. Yes ADHD medication is reducing apetite, but let me tell you, its not always nice, especially if you want to gain weight
Adderall is amphetamine, not methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is occasionally prescribed when front-line treatments fail. In any case, the dosage is far below what is used recreationally. ADHD patients rarely get addicted to medically-prescribed amphetamine, especially when it's the slow-release preparation.
When Adderall is used as prescribed long term - appetite suppression is greatly reduced. Where I work I have an N=2 sample that are != skinny by any stretch.
That'd imply it's okay to put obese folks in cages without food until they've lost weight and I'd suggest that that's fucking insane. We've discovered another dimension!
That'd imply it's okay to put smokers in cages without cigarettes until they've stopped smoking and I'd suggest that that's fucking insane. We've discovered another dimension!
The correct answer is because it's become very taboo, particularly in academic circles, to make any statement that implies that it's not good to be fat. So articles like these always must include at least one generic quote about how being thin is not an end in itself.
A professor I follow once said Nature isn't as prestigious as people think, they just publish such a high volume that people have gotten that impression
I subscribed to Nature for a couple of years and although I am not a proper academic and maybe not the best judge, the articles in Nature sometime looks like they belong on vox.com or wired and not in a scientific paper.
As in opinions presented as evidence, from an almost random person, without actually providing any.
Especially around social subjects like the BLM protests.
One thing I loved about 60 minutes back in the day, was their ability to present a story from multiple points of views.
When I started reading Nature at my former employers, many many years ago, I felt their articles were like that.
At some point it started to look like cherrypicking a single viewpoint, often with obvious political taint.
Maybe it was always like that and I just used to idolize it.
I still very much love the magazine though but stopped subscribing. Its really expensive.
When I get my hands on a copy these days I just filter what I perceive as woke crap from the rest and skip those articles.
I wonder if that is such a good thing…
Edit: typo and context
Yes, but this researcher's field is body image and weight stigma, not mental health issues. In the paper that appears first if you google-scholar her name, she writes in the first sentence of the abstract "Weight bias [or the stigma towards and negative stereotypes about individuals who have large bodies] is a form of stigma with detrimental effects on the health and wellness of individuals with large bodies." So making people thinner will actually improve their health and wellness.
If she's worried about other negative outcomes, such as people not being able to afford the drug, she should say so. It might be an editorial fuck-up on Nature's side, of course: they just want to print some soothing words to demonstrate their neutrality.
Its an article about weight loss and that plays into body image which is a huge mental health issue. People purging themselves need a psychologist, not a biologist, and I'm sure a number of people affected with bulimia will be buying this drug.
A class of drugs that quash hunger have shown striking results in trials and in practice. But can they help all people with obesity — and conquer weight stigma?
Who cares? Helping half of people with a problem to overcome it is great. Journalists and editors need to push back against simplistic concepts like 'one size fits all' and the urge to rank everything, which just leads to bimodal distributions and the accompanying bad outcomes when they are imposed by economic force.
Why use drugs and lifestyle changes when lifestyle changes alone will do the trick? Everybody knows you're not a real Hackernews until you adopt a cold, calculating, "food is fuel" mentality toward eating, with extensive data collection, strict timing, data-driven portion control, and long fasting periods. Once you do that you don't need the drugs and can tell Big Pharma where to shove it.
Lifestyle change alone is NOT all it takes.
I've been fat all of my life, so has everybody in the last 3 generations of genetic contributors.
I can easily drop 20-40lbs if I cut sugar out of my diet. Then it stops.
I've cycled 15miles/day for 7 years (on non-snowy days).
During that time I went on a water-only fast, (7days on, eat one day, then 14days eat one day, then 7 days more of fasting before I stopped.) I lost 13 lbs during that period. I was doing a keto diet before and after this period. I was killing myself trying to have a high energy output with minimal caloric intake.
In the end, winter came and I stopped. Total weight loss during that time: 35lbs. There is no way I can lose the extra 160lbs that I need to drop. My body just won't drop it.
I'm diabetic now. I take metformin and invokana. As of today I'm down almost 30lbs since august.
Lifestyle changes maybe enough for you. That's awesome, good for you. Don't make blanket assumptions and think that they are true.
It's weird that insurance companies won't cover this, considering the cost of treating obesity-related illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, strokes, certain forms of cancer, etc. It's also weird that pharmaceutical manufacturers price this so high, considering the potential size of the market relative to the current size of the market. I guess what I'm saying is: the healthcare industry makes a lot of choices I don't understand. /shrug
Well... another way of thinking about this is... if it costs 15,000 a year to treat, I wonder what percentage of those people could lose weight another way for less than $15,000 a year (e.g. free gym membership with classes, personal trainer, and $500 a month bonus if you show up twice a week)
We know the answer to that, though. Very few morbidly obese adults lose significant amounts of weight and keep it off long term, even with comprehensive lifestyle interventions like calorie counting, gym membership, and therapists. Even people who lose a lot of weight just gain it back at 1-2 kg a year. That's why there's an obesity epidemic.
The whole idea that obesity is a “stigma” is overplayed. Obesity is unhealthy. If I see an obese young child, I might form a negative opinion about their parents. If an adult is obese, they should want to lose weight because it will make them healthier.
The best 'obesity drug' I've found is low-carb + intermittent fasting. 90 pounds later, I'm not hungry and every aspect of my health has improved dramatically.
As a diabetes researcher, results like this don't surprise me one bit, but I'm glad they're getting national coverage! A publication in Nature is an incredible achievement, congrats to the teams involved.
We think good glucose control is at the center of a whole host of medical issues, inside and outside the hospital. Bringing critically ill patients under control has been found to reduce mortality rates by up to 30%, results which have been repeated several times in thousands of patients. These drugs, which are less intense than insulin therapy, confer similar glucoregulatory effects, which has all sorts of cascading hormone benefits etc.
The other effects (they're not a side effects, since they're the intended effects) are satiety and cessation of cravings. In the "appetite vs. hunger" dichotomy you set up, the drugs seem to be addressing mostly the former; in fact, it sounds like, from reports on this thread, pts on these meds very much still experience true hunger symptoms (weakness, headache, brain fog).
Very weird to take a country that hasn’t kept pace with research here and use it as representative, especially with a sample of patients with chronic disease.
Having been on semaglutide, it both makes you feel full with smaller portions and changes what you want to eat. The foods which make you feel nauseous are those that make you gain weight. However the change in desire isn’t only against foods which make you feel nauseous, but also towards foods that you might not eat. It’s truly very interesting.
$1000/month seems like a decent amount of money for a lot of people. I'm guessing a large number of folks would love to lose weight miraculously. I wonder how long before we get a bootleg analog that can be bought in the non-medical drug market in the same way as testosterone can be bought. Now that the mechanism is known (GLP-1 inhibition) are these the kind of drug, e.g. LSD, valium, or morphine, that is easy to create a facsimile or analog of?
These drugs are way more difficult to manufacture than testosterone. I'm sure we'll see things branded as a knockoff but I doubt we'll see any true knockoffs.
"The WHO recommends healthier diets and physical activity to reduce obesity, but medication might help when lifestyle changes aren’t enough. The new drugs mimic hormones known as incretins, which lower blood sugar and curb appetite."
Isn't eating less food (whether your appetite is curbed or not) a lifestyle change? It's not that lifestyle changes aren't enough. It's that the size of your change wasn't big enough.
> It's not that lifestyle changes aren't enough. It's that the size of your change wasn't big enough.
Sure, and one of the things we conclusively know about obesity is that people struggle enormously to sustain that sort of lifestyle change in the long term.
Hence, medications that help with that. In this case, by reducing hunger.
How many of obesity cases are caused by eating disorders and addiction psyche in general? Treating the symptom in this case barely helps. You might lose weight, but it'll pop up in some other place in your life. See it as psychological side effect, a swap of coping mechanism. Often enough, IMO you need to go deeper than a pill.
Thats such bullshit. Sure, yes, there is 100% mental aspect to every obese person, but some of that shit is old and already dealt with, but since you are already fucked you cant get out from the cycle.
Of course we should deal with the mental side but it will be a million times easier to deal with after you aren’t a fat fuck.
For one, it's a value judgement, and the mind that makes it more often than not applies the same judgements to oneself, leading to feelings that not everyone can convert to constructive action. Hence avoidance by addictions, one of which can be food.
Also it implies disrespect and ignorance of the reasons why someone eats more than is considered healthy. It's a mockery of a person's perceived failure to adapt to abstract adversity. And someone who had psychological issues with addiction and dealt with them would be very unlikely to mock these things.
You managed to type a lot without actually saying anything.
I can give you (even if I don't necessarily agree) that some fat people will go to other addictions which are harmful, but that is still not a reason not to pursue this. There are plenty of fat people who aren't going to relapse into some other addiction or at least not as hard.
I'm not obese, but am not what I'd consider at my ideal weight. I wonder how/if doctors would even prescribe this to someone like me. I think I've read some Hollywood types are using this to lose weight, but those are edge cases. I imagine for normal people this would not be easy to get prescribed.
FDA approves these for use in most people above 30 BMI. Some people may be considered for it at 28 BMI. If you're looking for last mile weight loss, this may not actually be worth it. The side effects, especially getting started, can be really rough.
Convincing people to not fool around never worked so the birth control pill was invented to allow people to indulge with less consequences. I recall someone (I forget who) said that things that prevent you from eating will never work and the only solution is something that allows you to indulge without the consequences. Does this drug allow you to indulge without consequences or does it make you not want to eat? If its the later, I bet that it won't have long term success.
Edit: A drug that allows you to indulge without consequence in this context would be a bad thing. It would allow people to eat non-stop without the consequences and would increase the demand for food in the modern nations to unreasonable levels. If you think about it, this kind of drug would have the same outcome as bulimia (think, hunger games).
People WANT to indulge. A drug that kills sex drive would never work but the drug that lets you have a sex drive without consequences already works today.
Edit: It might have novelty support but I'm confident that in the long run people will choose to indulge and get the dopamine.
(From a position of significant ignorance) It seems there is not a strong consensus on what has caused the great increase in obesity of the past fifty years, perhaps throwing greater effort in that direction would be a better long term solution ?
To my mind it's strange that there seems to be a circular argument which starts with sedentary life style and "bad" foods cause obesity so exercise and diet control seems like a fix but that is countered by exercise doesn't help (much) and dieting has only temporary effects.
If my summary is reasonably correct it seems to me what's needed is more understanding of the outcome before using drugs to "fix it".
I wonder if a drug is less likely to be lobbied against than the types of changes such investigations might suggest.
It's pretty clear by now that the intake of high amounts of fructose, refined carbohydrates and packaged foods has resulted in obesity. The much maligned fat in a healthy diet was never the culprit. The Chinese on a rice diet were never very obese until they became rich and started consuming packaged foods. Now their obesity rates rival the US's.
Uncontrolled insulin levels cause obesity because of insulin's dual role in fat storage. The key is to change one's diet such that insulin levels are lowered and the stored fat can be utilized for metabolic needs.
Exercise is important for general health but trying to lose weight by exercising doesn't work if the diet stays the same. Food is just too calorie rich and the body too calorie efficient. The adage 'get fit in the gym, get slim in the kitchen' applies.
Genetically, a small number of people might have metabolic issues causing obesity.Drugs might be the right choice for them but for the vast majority of us, we just need to take a hard look at our diet.
I would encourage you to revise your summary. We don't know what the third-order drivers of obesity are, but we absolutely know that caloric surplus is the primary driver, and that surplus is driven by both lower energy expenditure (sedentary lifestyle) and increased caloric intake (junk food). There are other causes for individuals, but not at a population level.
The question is much more: why did people start moving less & eating more? Each have complex factors (less physical jobs, increased wealth, food addictiveness, cultural shifts, etc.), and on THOSE, there's lots of debate.
But we absolutely know what causes obesity at a population level.
> If my summary is reasonably correct it seems to me what's needed is more understanding of the outcome before using drugs to "fix it".
The likely reason is the changes in lifestyle thanks to the changes in technology. Is "let's just get rid of the past 70 years of technological advancement" something that we'll seriously consider?
Agreed, that's the commonly held reason but when one attempts to reverse what the changes seem to have been, by exercising more and eating less, that doesn't seem to work. My point is that perhaps we need to better understand what the changes have been, that perhaps they are more subtle than they are commonly held to be.
To couple on with what the other poster said there are two primary changes...
1. The amount of available cheap calories in convenient easy to eat packaging is orders of magnitudes higher than it was in the past.
2. Work and activity has changed so dramatically that we would not recognize the world of the past.
Now the nuance here is understanding all the small ramifications that are far more invisible to us. Think of a coke bottle and how many calories that contains, I mean it's a huge amount. But now think about the convenience of it. You can carry it with you just about anywhere. The vast majority of jobs will let you carry it around work or leave it on your desk to drink from all day. It doesn't matter how much your work out, if you drink one extra coke per day, you've added more calories in than you're working off.
But then add in all the small things that keep us from walking/exercising as much. Way fewer of our jobs are 'hard work' and been replaced by machines. We tend not to let our kids run around like wild creatures outside the house all day. Instead they are probably home, on the entertainment system of some kind with a coke in their hand. Kids also consume junk all day that is specifically marketed to them. You have to add all these factors in.
From what I understand (which is mostly second hand from a health journalist friend), "work out a bit more and eat a bit less" doesn't get you anywhere close to how people lived up until 1950. In 1920, Americans had 8million cars registered (at 106m people), today they have 276 million cars to 330m people, and that's basically the same for every aspect of life.
> The results astonished researchers: a weekly injection for almost 16 months, along with some lifestyle changes, reduced body weight by at least 20% in more than one-third of the participants
Why would they introduce lifestyle changes alongside the drug? Doesn't that complicate the analysis?
> Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio, through the use of an interactive Web-based response system, to receive semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg administered subcutaneously once a week for 68 weeks or matching placebo, in addition to lifestyle intervention...
One of the expected benefits of the medication is to make it easier to comply with recommended lifestyle changes. It simplifies the analysis to recommend a specific set of changes rather than letting all of the participants improvise their own diet and exercise changes.
Probably assigned both arms to lifestyle changes, since we know those are beneficial. Assuming that's the case, then yes to your point, but also it's the right thing to do since there is no equipoise about lifestyle.
I suppose it actually makes it simpler, because you control for lifestyle changes.
Who says some participants wouldn't just start eating trash? I know I did after I lost some weight due to a bad case of something my child brought in from daycare.
> They described the details of an investigation of a promising anti-obesity medication in teenagers, a group that is notoriously resistant to such treatment. The results astonished researchers: a weekly injection for almost 16 months, along with some lifestyle changes, reduced body weight by at least 20% in more than one-third of the participants1. Previous studies2,3 had shown that the drug, semaglutide, was just as impressive in adults.
Two immediate thoughts:
How much of it was actually the lifestyle changes? It would be more interesting if there were no lifestyle changes...
This apparently works by suppressing appetite, but doesn't cocaine do the same thing? Constant needle marks from weekly injections might result in more social complications than anything else...
> How much of it was actually the lifestyle changes?
That's why the placebo group in the trial also gets the same lifestyle changes.
> This apparently works by suppressing appetite, but doesn't cocaine do the same thing?
Sure. If they were otherwise identical, that'd be a good point, but they're not.
> Constant needle marks from weekly injections might result in more social complications than anything else...
My daughter has to give herself growth hormone injections every day, and has for nearly a decade now. You don't get needle marks from these sorts of small dosage subcutaneous injection.
Yeah, it's very different; vaccinations are generally much deeper (into muscle), and drawing blood punctures a vein causing leakage into the surrounding tissue.
Daily injections can leave a little under-the-skin scarring (feels a little like cellulite) so you have to vary the site a bit, but for most folks that's the worst of it. Well worth it for these sorts of results.
> Sure. If they were otherwise identical, that'd be a good point, but they're not.
You can say the same of opium, heroin, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, and Naloxone. Many of which have had i ical trials done and all of which are abused and addictive.
I simply don't trust clinical trials by large pharmaceutical companies any longer.
> You can say the same of opium, heroin, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, and Naloxone. Many of which have had i ical trials done and all of which are abused and addictive.
Cocaine isn't a viable weight-loss drug because its downsides outweigh the benefits. The downsides of semaglutide and tirzepatide are nothing like that of cocaine, and thus the calculus works out better for them.
> You can say the same of opium, heroin, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, and Naloxone.
Setting aside the fact that including naloxone in that list is a bit bizarre - it counteracts the rest of the list, everyone should have some in their first aid kit - those medications have benefits that make them sometimes appropriate clinically. (Similarly, cocaine is used medically and in a very controlled fashion in rare cases, like persistent bad nosebleeds.)
You say that Naloxone is abused and addictive? That is completely wrong. Naloxone has no addictive potential and has no potential for abuse. I think you have it confused with something else.
Cocaine does the same thing but it only lasts ~20 minutes. Ozempic is a once a week injection that curbs appetite and makes the user feel fuller faster. It also comes in a pen (like an epipen) and is injected into fat stores so the user probably won't have "track marks."
> How much of it was actually the lifestyle changes? It would be more interesting if there were no lifestyle changes...
The article answers this further down:
> Those receiving weekly injections of semaglutide lost, on average, 14.9% of their body weight after 16 months of treatment; those who received a placebo lost 2.4% on average.
Per the article still a lot of work to do in this area, but on the face of it this could be an alternative to bariatric surgery for 1/3 of people.
> Those receiving weekly injections of semaglutide lost, on average, 14.9% of their body weight after 16 months of treatment; those who received a placebo lost 2.4% on average.
Doesn't really have anything to do with the question about lifestyle changes. That question basically centers around whether the 14.9% weight loss occurred independent of or as a result of lifestyle changes downstream from the semaglutide.
To the extent that lifestyle changes include "not eating as much", it seems self-evident that the weight loss was the result of lifestyle changes. A drug that makes it easier to stick with a diet is a huge deal!
I’m a skinny / athletic person. The reason is a doctor told my parents not to feed me any sugar until age 2-3, as fat cells are created up to that age. After that, they only change in size.
I don’t know if that’s a scientifically proven thing, but indeed i simply can not gain weight, whatever i eat. As if i had zero fat cells.
The only downside is that I’m often cold, which is of course far easier to manage. I’m not a water person though, as its nontrivial to “dress up” for swimming.
It’s a miracle, please spread it. The next generation could avoid the fatness problem alltogether.
> The reason is a doctor told my parents not to feed me any sugar until age 2-3
What I take from this is that the actual reason is, "I had parents that were concerned enough with my nutrition to not feed me much sugar as a child, and those healthy eating habits probably didn't stop after age 2-3. I now cannot gain weight, even if I eat what I perceive as a lot of food (because I grew up eating healthy food and portion sizes)."
I was one of those "I can't gain weight/put on muscle" people for a long time. I eventually tried eating literally double what I would normally eat, and as expected, I started gaining weight.
Once I was working in London as a contractor, a colleague looked at my lunch after a while of working together, shook his head and told me "you are going to kill yourself". I hope that was indeed the worst 6mo in my life pretty much living on fast food, but I did not gain a penny in weight.
I think healthy eating habits would be the last thing that came to my friends minds when describing me.
I totally agree I'm only a sample of one that I know of, but the fact that this doctor relative of ours told my parents the cause-and-effect relationship beforehand, and it worked out, makes me believe the theory. Either way, I keep recommending it to my friends getting babies, so I'll be able to collect more data in the next 50 years. ;)
The thing is, that's the kind of gamble that costs nothing and might have immense upside, so it would be kinda silly not to apply it. My 2c.
I’m surprised insurance doesn’t want to cover it. I’d think the cost at scale would outweigh (pun intended) the longer term costs that fat people bring. Or do their hearts just explode at 50 and that’s it?
My guess is that they don’t want to cover a $1,000/month drug to save costs that you may not incur for many years / when you’re no longer insured by them.
It only works if all the companies agree to cover it.
I wonder if, given the cost of the drugs, we're only going to be able moreso to visibly see poorness, i.e. fat people's class will be well known and discrimination to follow.
I'm on high dose (60 mg) mirtazapine motivates immense weight gain as a side-effect.
I'm +30% overweight (260 lbs vs. 200 / 117 kg vs 90) and the hunger for carbs is beyond ravenous.
Stimulants are nonstarters because I'm already on a beta blocker for inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and other meds for "physiological" anxiety (can never relax).
There are startups that can simplify the process of getting this drug if you're eligible. They do require you to talk to a doctor and nutritionist to see if this is the best thing you should do first, but then they can get you the drug.
I’m sympathetic to anyone who feels they “need” to take these, and wants to encourage others to do the same. I’m sure they work wonders for obesity, and that’s great. But we cannot get something for nothing, so I have to wonder: at what cost?
A poster below me said that, at a population level, diet and exercise do not work. That’s mostly true. Most people don’t permanently change their diet and other lifestyle long term. I think that ignoring that they do work in the short term, and could work in the long term if adherence were better, overlooks something important.
Moving past that, we are an obese population. Or, at least, very overweight. Supposing diet and exercise do not work, what are we to do? I’d propose we look toward rectifying the causes. There are innumerable environmental factors today that make us fat: pollution, drug side effects, food advertising, alcohol, social pressure, widespread sedentary jobs and lifestyle, etc., etc., etc. If we focused on solving the problems that are making us obese, we wouldn’t need these drugs (or at least, not nearly to the extent we do). We used to live in a world like that. We know what it looks like. We know the consequences. We know our bodies and society can tolerate that world, and that it would solve our issues. Why not aim for a return?
Instead we will opt for another technical solution to our technical problem of obesity, causing all manner of unknown risks later on, and falling back to another technical solution to that technical problem. We will continue to layer on technique after technique to patch holes in the solutions we left in our last layer of solutions. The holes will grow larger and larger as we stack on more layers with more holes, and solutions will grow smaller and smaller as technology grows ever more specialized. The cycle is not sustainable.
Just making sure everybody understands that these drugs are not a solution to the problem. Assuming they work, they just make dieting easy.
Look at people who successfully lost weight with diet -- studies show that almost all of them will regain most of their weight within 5 years. And the basic reason is because almost all dieting regimes are shitty, unsustainable way to live and at the end people are left tired of the diet and looking to get back to the eating habits they love and caused the problem in the first place.
Also calorie restriction comes with a host of other problems. You need to provide better nutrition while on a diet -- your body still needs same things but now there is less food with which it has to be delivered. But if you got obese you probably don't know how to eat properly.
Prolonged calorie restriction causes muscle wasting. You can counteract it to a certain degree for some time with exercise. Which if you are obese you probably don't know how to.
Calorie restriction also typically causes basal metabolic rate drop. Which means you have to keep tightening the diet to see results. And when you are off the diet it will be extremely difficult to impossible to keep your weight.
You can still cause a lot of damage to your body by snacking and eating wrong foods even if you are on calorie restricted diet. It is better to learn to not snack and keep your eating window to 4-6 hours every day rather than eat through entire day.
I personally dislike meds like this. It is good it exists but I would never take them or recommend to anybody. There are a lot of medications that are supposed to help (like metformin) but all these meds do not address the main cause of the problem -- which is what you eat, how you eat and when you eat it.
--
For background, I got obese once and lost weight. Then regained the weight over a decade. Being engineer and problem solver, I vowed to understand the shit out of the problem, loose the weight properly and never regain it back. Which seems to be working. Understanding how to loose weight allowed me to do fantastic things like loose weight at 3 times the rate I did it previously while not feeling hungry or cold.
The previous time I was on calorie restricted diet loosing and I was completely miserable for almost entire year, cold, slow, irritated, unable to focus.
This time I completed the same weight loss in 4 months while actually feeling better than ever (at least most of the time). Most important for me, it is not interfering with my work.
I am also not taking any meds.
I am not preaching any diets here. I am just suggesting that if you are feeling hungry throughout your diet you are probably doing something wrong and it would be worth the while to understand what and how to fix it. And the only way this happens is if you get interested. No drug is going to magically fix it for you.
>For background, I got obese once and lost weight. Then regained the weight over a decade. Being engineer and problem solver, I vowed to understand the shit out of the problem, loose the weight properly and never regain it back. Which seems to be working. Understanding how to loose weight allowed me to do fantastic things like loose weight at 3 times the rate I did it previously while not feeling hungry or cold.
>The previous time I was on calorie restricted diet loosing and I was completely miserable for almost entire year, cold, slow, irritated, unable to focus.
>This time I completed the same weight loss in 4 months while actually feeling better than ever (at least most of the time). Most important for me, it is not interfering with my work.
I would be cautious to give something that could be misconstrued as an actual health advice. I have rather limited medical knowledge and I am only comfortable experimenting on myself.
That said, I red 3-4 dozen books related to weight loss, dieting, habit formation, nutrition, metabolism, diabetes, etc. and countless articles and youtube videos. I made notes of various topics that seemed important and repeated rather frequently and then tried cross-referencing to find which ideas are bunk and which seemed to be well supported.
Starting the process, my goals were to overdetermine the success (ie. do a bunch of things at the same time to ensure success) and to build understanding of topics to the point where I can see how everything fits together and builds confidence I know what I am doing.
Here is an unsorted list of ideas from my memory that I think helped me the most:
* building habits and prepare for what to do after achieving target weight is super important. Weight loss time should be spent learning right habits, building habit chains, discovering/learning healthy dishes, etc.
* managing family is also super important -- if your wife and kids have habits that will collide with your goals they can become worst enemies of the progress achieved,
* become healthy to loose weight rather than loose weight to become healthy -- focus on identifying and fixing health problems and weight loss should more or less come as a consequence
* it is better to do 20% of effort for 80% of benefit in each area rather than try to perfect any one of areas at the cost of others. Don't plan to become an athlete -- it is enough to jog every day for half an hour at comfortable pace. Don't plan for perfect diet -- it is enough to eat "healthy" most of the time. Etc.
* it is better to learn and get to love new, healthy foods and add them to your diet than to try to remove unhealthy things you love. Add new foods/dishes and let them slowly displace bad ones.
* commit to eating a portion of fresh fruit and vegetables, every day, however small. The goal is to build habits so that there is always fresh fruit/veggies at home, so that you automatically search/reach for them at the grocery, so that you have opportunity to test various things and learn new dishes.
* commit to doing any amount of exercise every day. As above, the goal is to build habits, not to become an athlete. The first thing I did was to improve my fitness to the point I could be jogging every day.
* don't start all changes at the same time -- introduce enough delay for each change to get accustomed and to be able to properly focus on that one change
* I found intermittent fasting (4-6 hours eating window, 18-20 hours of fasting) to be probably the single most important thing to improve health and loose weight. It also has benefit of being sustainable and can be additionally combined with calorie restriction and/or keto.
* The best eating window is probably somewhere in the middle of the day. There needs to be enough time before going to bed so that significant portion of fasting happens during sleep (aids recovery) but not too much or it might cause cravings in the evening and make it difficult to adhere.
* I found there are various easy strategies to decrease blood glucose ofter a meal that do not require making huge changes in diet: reduce carb intake during meal, precede carbs with protein/fat, precede carbs with any kind of acid (deactivates enzymes and further reduces blood glucose after a meal).
* A physical exercise like a walk immediately after a meal helps purge blood sugar. While exercise itself does not make the body any less insulin resistant, the effect is as if insulin was more effective.
* I found prolonged fasting and/or keto diet to be good temporary solutions to various problems. After some research I would probably not advise anybody to stay on keto for very long, but spending some time on it gives you superpower of metabolic flexibility, and this ease of being able to hop on and off carbs without ill effects greatly helps with being able to adhere to intermittent/prolonged fasts.
* Carbs make you crave more carbs. If you have problem with hunger while restricting calories, probably the easiest thing you can do is to cut carbs temporarily.
* You probably don't need to get on keto diet to get most of the benefits. MCT oil in morning coffee is enough to generate ketones to stimulate mitochondria to multiply and waste more enrgy.
* The main benefit of keto is that it is darn hard to eat so much fat and cutting carbs suppresses (unhealthy, extra) hunger.
* Running at easy pace (easy = you can still talk easily) for at least 20-30 minutes regularly is ideal to cause mitochondria to multiply. Mitochondria are your friends when loosing weight because this is how your fat gets turned to heat. The more mitochondria you have the easier it is to burn through fat.
* Running at any higher pace or for much longer probably is not advisable. The benefits are incremental but a risk of injury grows significantly making it absolutely not worth it from purely health/weight loss perspective.
I think this is too dismissive, and internally inconsistent.
These drugs are not the solution for all people, but they may well be a part of it for many. The interventions you're advising - "don't snack", "exercise more", have the same pattern you're talking about with dieting - alone, they tend to fail in the long-term.
It's easier to learn to eat better (and enjoy things like veggies) if you're not feeling starving all the time. It's easier to learn to exercise (and enjoy it) if you're not obese.
> all these meds do not address the main cause of the problem -- which is what you eat, how you eat and when you eat it
"Just don't do that" hasn't historically had a great track record of addressing it, either.
Is the drug a long-term solution either, though? Won't the users regain the weight after stopping the drug, exactly like people who stop dieting do?
The trick with all lifestyle changes is to start as small as possible. Don't try to overhaul your eating and exercising habits overnight, but instead start from something small like "buy some fresh fruits every time you buy groceries" or "go outside for a bit every day whatever time you feel like it".
100% this. A lot of people on Mounjaro report that one of the benefits is that their internal chatter about food / cravings is silenced. For the first time, when they get hungry they’re able to stop and consider whether they should eat a salad, reduce portion size, etc.
GLP-1 agonists are an incredibly effective pharmaceutical intervention, why are you dismissive of them?
behavorial interventions for weight loss don't work clinically. the only other intervention that comes close to the effect size of GLP-1 agonists is surgery.
you can argue that they treat the symptoms and not the disease, sure. the mechanisms of systemic obesity aren't well understood. but it's inarguable that this is disease of homeostatic misregulation, the set point is too high. which is why behavioral interventions fail.
we don't talk down to the people suffering from other diseases of homeostatic misregulation (eg diabetes) for their moral failings, we treat it. but that's how diabetes is treated now, "just stop being fat".
It is very much in analogous to where depression was 30 years ago. Now, therapy and anti-depressants are widespread and destigmatized.
The difference is that while SSRIs are only marginally better than placebo, GLP-1 agonists are _incredibly_ effective. Huge effect sizes.
I think in 30 years you're going to look back on your opinions now and be embarrassed that you were telling people to avoid a very effective and safe pharmaceutical intervention and "just stop being depressed"
I've been having the same conversation over and over again since GLP-1 agonists were approved and it's always the same. People who are opposed to a very effective pharmaceutical intervention but are not able to articulate any cogent reason as to why. It's just stigma.
So does this somehow burn fat or does it just lower your appetite? There are many others drugs that lower appetite, and yet we still have an obesity crisis. Why would this one solve it?
There is only one class of drugs that lowers appetite outside of these GLP hormone drugs, those are stimulants like amphetamines. As someone on one of the GLP drugs for 3-4 months, and whose body tolerates it well, this is simply turning off the hunger switch. I will miss meals because I'm not hungry, since starting I have never felt "hangry" and I am satiated with small meals and do not feel hungry later. If I overeat, I will feel nauseous and sick.
I do not feel wired, foggy or feel like my personality or sleep cycle has been affected in the slightest.
Available food/calorie supply has dramatically increased over time[0] so many ancestors probably didn’t have the opportunity to get fat even if they had the genes.
I am currently on one of these regimes, and it has been miraculous for my life. I became obese when I was 27, topping a 32 BMI, when I was 35 I gained a substantial amount of mass by just pumping iron and doing cardio, brah.
5 years later, I had a bad knee, and lost most of my gains. Dr. Bronner put me on a steady diet of Carne Asada and Kale, and I've been a wiry lean pooping machine ever since!
He's a miracle worker, send him all your money now!
Am I right that, if I (early twenties, 36 BMI) have no other health complications, it makes sense to wait to see what the long term effects of these drugs are?
If I knew it was safe in the long term I’d take it in a heartbeat. However, I’m concerned that there could be long term issues with the drug (perhaps a resistance/“yo-yo” effect where the potency wears off and I gain back my original weight plus more than I would have otherwise over, say, 10 or 20 years).
Is that the sort of thing that’s in the realm of the possible/plausible or is this more like a vaccine where there are some strong theoretical reasons why we don’t expect it to have long term issues?
Because sometimes you’re dealing with the real article. This isn’t a boner pill made of rhino horn. This has been proven in double blind studies, FDA approved and has changed the lives of thousands of people. This could potentially halt the obesity epidemic, preventing many early deaths and improving the quality of life of countless others.
At that point, such headlines are justified. What would you have written instead? Something lukewarm like “Obesity drugs show efficacy in many patients”?
Too much of this thread is debating whether these drugs are a good thing or a bad thing, and not enough is on the underlying science story, which is what HN "should" be interested in. What's happening with these drugs --- that you can replicate much of the effect of bariatric surgery with an injection --- is super interesting, and didn't seem to be on the horizon 10 years ago.
I'm sure it's possible to formulate a headline for this story that doesn't sound like gutter-tier clickbait. Nature must be doing a poor job hiring / directing their editors.
> “I’m really hesitant to be excited about something that I think is potentially harmful from a weight stigma perspective,” says Sarah Nutter, a psychologist at the University of Victoria in Canada, who specializes in weight stigma and body image.
Putting the word "stigma" on things is a sure sign of a grifter. Instead of helping solve it, they're trying to make it a social science problem.
Being overweight is unhealthy. There's no serious dispute about that. So people recognizing that fact is "stigma?"
The new idea (mostly in the West) that being obese is/can be a healthy lifestyle is absolutely maddening. People being obese (and I don't mean a few pounds overweight) raises everyone's healthcare cost, because it is incredibly unhealthy and obese people tend to have more complications which requires more treatment, workers and subsidizing.
It's not just an individual problem, it's a societal problem. There's a new "Gatorade Fit" commercial with, easily, a 300lb woman in it...the brand is literally "Fit," being 300lbs is not fit in any way shape or form. Why is this happening? Even when/if I'm 10-20lbs overweight, I don't want someone patting me on the back saying I'm actually "fit" or anything close to it. It's such a weird lie that makes it feel like I'm living in a bizzarro world.
At least it's almost sugar free, relative to normal gatorade anyway. I think advertising regular sugary gatorade to fat people as a fitness product would be tantamount to stochastic murder.
>The new idea (mostly in the West) that being obese is/can be a healthy lifestyle is absolutely maddening.
We took the extreme of anorexia being healthy to obesity being healthy. The fact is neither extreme is healthy. Being not anorexic is not the same as being obese, there's a huge range of fairly healthy weights in between the two in terms of body fat percentages and muscle ratios.
Japan taxes obesity through a payroll tax, which to my understanding is especially effective because of the peer pressure exerted by your colleagues and even manager. Being fat is seen as letting the team down since you're causing their costs to go up, not just your own.
In a way, maybe Gatorade is trying to be honest about lying. After all, a 20 oz bottle of Gatorade has 36 grams of sugar in it and would substantially contribute to type 2 diabetes. It would behoove them to fund a narrative that the product and the outcome associated with the product are indeed "fit" to maximize sales.
Of course, the wrinkle with approach is that that as you mention, the reality is that nothing could be furthest from the truth. Obesity is fastest growing and most deadly American chronic condition. The outsized impact of type 2 diabetes on payer spend, both medical and pharmacy, cannot be overstated.
And when you put that all together, it makes a commercial like the one you mentioned seem banal and sinister at the same time.
> raises everyone's healthcare cost, because it is incredibly unhealthy and obese people tend to have more complications which requires more treatment, workers and subsidizing.
Is that actually true? From what I understand, obesity will cost you dearly in life expectancy, and most of the cost comes in the last few years of normal life expectancy. Someone who dies of heart attack at 63 isn't going to run up huge bills from age 77 to 85.
I believe there was a similar calculation for smokers. The health cost in higher cancer rates are outweighed in what you save on costly treatment for the elderly + fewer pension payments.
Yes, smoking isn't the same at all. People that are extremely obese require bigger hospital beds, more equipment, more drugs, more operations, etc. That's not even remotely comparable to smoking in terms of costs on the system. There also aren't a lot of smokers anymore, at least not in the US, obesity is a revolving door that is constantly taxing the system. Even during COVID obese people were the ones taxing the system, not people of normal/healthier weights.
"Adults with obesity in the United States compared with those with normal weight experienced higher annual medical care costs by $2,505 or 100%, with costs increasing significantly with class of obesity, from 68.4% for class 1 to 233.6% for class 3. The effects of obesity raised costs in every category of care: inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drugs. Increases in medical expenditures due to obesity were higher for adults covered by public health insurance programs ($2,868) than for those having private health insurance ($2,058). In 2016, the aggregate medical cost due to obesity among adults in the United States was $260.6 billion. The increase in individual-level expenditures due to obesity varied considerably by state (e.g., 24.0% in Florida, 66.4% in New York, and 104.9% in Texas)."
My point was that these people tend to live a full decade less, and they're missing out the decade when health care cost rise to $11k/yr (65+, also when Medicaid kicks in as far as I understand).
Only looking at the obesity-related health-care cost without looking at the earlier-death-related savings doesn't get you a clear picture. All obese people becoming healthier might actually cost the health-care system more. I understand that's not a comfortable way to think about it for some people, but I do believe it's useful to consider.
In Germany, healthcare spending for women is about 20% larger per person which is primarily explained by the 5 years additional life expectancy. You'll see that it's not obvious that an obese person dying 10 years earlier will necessarily have the same life time cost because their life is much shorter, and cost rises rapidly when you're past retirement age.
I'm well aware of the stat that you're pushing, I am pointing that it does not apply to people that are obese. Costs rise rapidly for obese people MUCH sooner than the elderly and smokers which are a very niche group (specifically in the US), obese people are not; they also have early signs of problems, where smokers do not. Which group overran hospitals in 2020 with COVID and drained resources from other departments/types of healthcare? I'll give you a guess. That overrunning lead to the deaths of people that weren't obese and didn't have COVID because they could no longer get care. Also, Smokers don't need constant medications to fight high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, etc, so their lifetime costs are much much less.
Even outside of the medical realm, people that are grossly obese use more resources, including fuel, which effects everyone. It is very much a problem for everyone.
The new idea (mostly in the West) that being obese is/can be a healthy lifestyle is absolutely maddening. People being obese (and I don't mean a few pounds overweight) raises everyone's healthcare cost, because it is incredibly unhealthy and obese people tend to have more complications which requires more treatment, workers and subsidizing.
It does make sense and strikes me as irrational to celebrate something which is clearly harmful to society
Has the health care cost been studied? I wouldn't be surprised if morbidly obese people are cheaper in the long run due to a reduced lifespan (kinda like how smokers can be cheaper than nonsmokers-they may cost more to ensure before retirement age, but it more than evens out when you looked at reduced years after that point)
"Adults with obesity in the United States compared with those with normal weight experienced higher annual medical care costs by $2,505 or 100%, with costs increasing significantly with class of obesity, from 68.4% for class 1 to 233.6% for class 3. The effects of obesity raised costs in every category of care: inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drugs. Increases in medical expenditures due to obesity were higher for adults covered by public health insurance programs ($2,868) than for those having private health insurance ($2,058)."
I don't think that study (coincidentally from the maker's of semaglutide!) is answering quite the same question I'm asking, since it only looked at people aged 20-65 that were still alive without considering the difference in average lifespan.
If an obese person's healthcare costs an extra $2,000 annually for each of the age years covered in the study, that's $90,000 over their lifetime (ignoring inflation/time value of money to keep the numbers simple). But older people tend to have disproportionately higher healthcare costs.
To be kinda crass: If hypothetically obese people die at the age of 70 instead of 75, those 5 years of health care they don't need might have cost more than $90,000. Just a few ER or ICU visits can exceed that $90,000 amount, and the gap gets even starker if you take into account things like long term care and assisted living.
Another way to look at it, even staying within the 20-65 age group, is as a form of survivorship bias (or maybe there's a better term? Seems kinda bayesian but my stats days are well behind me)
For an extreme example, pretend that some adults take up the hobby of BASE jumping, and I have a study showing that their healthcare costs $10,000 per year, vs only $5,000/yr for non-base jumpers. A non-basejumping adult only needs $225k of healthcare before they become a senior citizen, but a basejumper needs $450k! So basejumping increases overall costs in the healthcare system, right?
But wait! BASE jumping is a dangerous activity (hence the medical bills), and many BASE jumpers die young. Let's say that every year 5% of BASE jumpers have fatal accidents, which means that the average base jumper dies around the age of 33. A BASE jumper who only needs medical care for 13 years doesn't cost the full $450k, they would only use $130k of healthcare. Which actually makes their lifetime medical bills much cheaper than that of a non-jumper!
I am well aware of what you're saying and was before this comment. The smoker data is not applicable to obesity. Smokers die younger, but do not have extended and sustainably increased healthcare costs over their entire life span. They also don't have as many negative externalities such as simply consuming more resources; even gasoline and jet fuel consumption is increased due to obese passengers.
> Smokers die younger, but do not have extended and sustainably increased healthcare costs over their entire life span.
A popular furphy spread from questionable assumptions.
FYI
> A major report published in 2016 by the National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization concluded that in high-income countries, lifetime health care costs are greater for smokers than for non-smokers, even after accounting for the shorter lives of smokers.
Tobacco issues and health care costs (with reference to some world class epidemiology studies) discussed at length here:
Telling people what they want to hear is not a novel way to collect cash or votes. It would be bizzarro if there were people who wanted to hear it but nobody willing to tell it to them.
Advertisements used to be aspirational. They either still are and people's aspirations have changed, or they are not and there's some other more current explanation for why this ad and others act as a mirror showing a person who they already are (fat) rather than who they aspire to be (not fat).
Said another way, there's nothing explicitly stating that the woman has a goal of becoming thinner. She is shown as well as two other thinner people. They're all doing their own form of exercising while clothed in activewear. The implication could be that the fat woman's goal is to become less fat or that she is comfortable as she is and fits in as part of Team Gatorade™. I suspect the message they're trying to convey is the latter.
Are the fitness goals of the other 2 actors explicitly stated?
Should fitness products only advertise with actors who are ALREADY fit and maintaining that fitness?
What exactly are you expecting? How exactly do you want fat people to be portrayed in advertisements for fitness that allows them to attempt to get fit?
> Are the fitness goals of the other 2 actors explicitly stated?
No.
Reread my comment. I said nothing about how I expect fat people to be portrayed or what is right or wrong about this ad.
The one thing I suggested is that I believe Gatorade is attempting to create an ad that is welcoming toward fat people regardless of their goals. At least, that is my interpretation given in the current year. Further evidence of my interpretation is that fat people were not shown in Gatorade ads several decades ago, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6xcLDKCzh4
Comparing the ad from the 90s to now shows that the older ad was aspirational. I'm sorry if that makes you upset, I did not create the Gatorade ad. I only interpreted it.
I think what’s strange about this ad is the fact that she’s doing a handstand. That isn’t a normal part of getting fit for most people, and it isn’t even safe to attempt by most people in the model’s weight range. Had they shown her using a stationary bike or taking a brisk walk in a park, it wouldn’t be controversial.
That's awfully harsh. For one, the person making that statement is not the developer of the treatment, she's a psychologist expressing concern about the possible downsides. Namely that the drug is expensive, doesn't work on everyone and hasn't been proven to show long-term beneficial outcomes yet (ie lower morbidity). I'm guessing it's also got a high potential for abuse from people with dysphoria. Nobody is saying we should keep it off the market, just that we need to be prepared for potential negative repercussions.
Again, needlessly harsh. She is psychologist with expertise in body image and was likely asked by the reporter for an opinion. Idk why you think she's trying to cash in on anything. It's incredibly cynical.
No, needfully harsh. "body image" is an invented term and "expertise" just means she got some papers published in journals controlled, most likely, by her friends. "Getting quoted in journals" would appear on her application for tenure, if she doesn't have it already.
Also, reporters don't just happen to call up random people and ask for an opinion. You call them and offer it. Get on HARO<haro@helpareporter.com> if you want to be quoted, too.
Down's Syndrome is also unhealthy. Should we stigmatize that also? The main issue is control. Many assume that weight is simple and under people's full control. Realistically, though, there are all kinds of reasons why weight gain happens and scientific measurement shows that wild animals are getting bigger too which suggests that pervasive presence of endocrine disrupting agents in the environment may be involved. It is not clear how we might stigmatize exposure to endocrine disruptors.
It is rather dishonest to compare a chromosomal disorder with obesity, don't you think? Trisomy 21 is a condition one is born with and has no control over. On the other hand it has been demonstrated time and time again that behavioral and diet changes can be used to control obesity.
> scientific measurement shows that wild animals are getting bigger too which suggests that pervasive presence of endocrine disrupting agents in the environment may be involved
And here you are, using the very word I called grifting.
It's not "stigmatizing" to call something unhealthy which is, at least potentially, controllable. And you cited no information at all about "endocrine disruptors" for the vast majority of obese people.
Could you link to a peer reviewed study concluding that?
Just to point out one potentially complicating factor Dr. Robert Lustig's work appears to show that our diets increasingly include processed foods which are strongly associated with health problems including weight gain and metabolic disease. So if you can completely avoid institutional food such as served at company canteens and figure out and stick to a good diet then maybe. Even then it seems like the stigma is just sloppiness that results in perfectly respectable contributions to society not being recognized.
Early on I made a habit out of becoming friends with fat people I met because their exposure to social stigma tended to make them strong as individuals.
If anything it seems like the person who is addicted to something that should be stigmatized is you.
I'm obese. Most people my age at my work are not obese. I managed to get back to normal weight pre-pandemic by IF (16:8) and ~1hr a day of walking.
Various things have lead to me eating/drinking (alcohol) to excess and becoming more overweight than ever.
My long-winded point is that it seems specifically to be my personal actions that have caused my obesity -- poor food choices and lack of exercise. Others from the same background, others at the same workplace, etc., are not obese.
I would hate anyone to start telling me being fat is OK and that I shouldn't bother to do anything about it.
Could you link to a peer reviewed study concluding that it's impossible to lose weight similarly to how it's impossible to get rid of an additional chromosome?
Asking because as a person who has lost a lot of weight (and kept it off) I would like to get them to reconsider their review process.
I mean, if you have perfect bloodwork and a marvel movie body probably not necessary but otherwise yes. Heart disease, hypertension, high cholesterol, colon cancer rates are rising amongst everyone, even thin people. These drugs positively impact indicators of these things in everyone. Longevity makers have been betting on metformin for a long time and these drugs are like a supercharged metformin
I take a GLP-1, I do not feel any of these effects unless I eat poorly. I'm not saying these side-effects don't happen, but they aren't guaranteed. Testing has also shown these aren't prevalent in the majority of users.
You forgot the key part of "for the first 3 months" the assumption is that they largely tapered off for OP I think. That's an easy trade off for me personally.
Brain fog also comes from eating 1000 calories a day for many until their body adjusts to a fat metabolism, much like keto flu. Also eating less makes your margin of error for bad micronutrient density significantly lower. You would need to tease out what is the medication and what comes from a low calorie diet in these patients by giving both groups (placebo vs medicated) the same diet and seeing the effects.
Okay that’s personal preference but the long term trade off seems to heavily out weigh some brain fog for a few months. Talking years of improved health.
Have there been proven benefits beyond weight loss? I am responding to "I believe that everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs for the longevity effects" and assertions about "longevity markers". I am not interested in taking a drug to lose weight. I am interested in improving my overall health, but I am not yet convinced that I should take this drug. The symptoms could be a sign that something bad is happening to the body.
I have been hearing for at least 20 years that calorie restriction increases lifespan [0]. I have not seen compelling evidence of this, but I know a lot of people believe it.
Please correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the initial research on this conducted on animal models where they were essentially starved to the point where they went into hibernation mode?
The point that I'd like to make is- if you think a comparison between hunter/gathers and the modern human is illustrative for a diet where our phenotype thrives best, sure, their food arrive at more irregular intervals than the modern human and they probably binged on what was in season at the time (which might give us pointers for our own diet) but I think the concept of perpetual calorie restriction as a full time human diet is infantile and quacky.
I have been eating only one meal per day deliberately for many years. I have fasted for up to 4 days. I seldom fast for more than one day.
When I was doing keto, I never experienced the keto flu that many complain about. If these are the same symptoms, maybe the same benefits are achieved without taking the drug.
These drugs positively impact indicators of these things in everyone.
I think people's eagerness to jump from changes in markers to actual longevity is quite unfortunate. Medical "breakthroughs" often founder on such confusion and amateurs approaching things this way. See Goodhart's Law [1] (much as I generally regret the hn/geek tendency to lean these law, here it's reasonable).
Somewhat inevitable to use surrogates because you're going to take absolutely forever to get results on longevity (barring things with very strong negative effects on longevity).
Though communicating the difference between things that are only proven on surrogate markers and things shown to actually affect the real desired outcome is important, I agree.
Which says his medical records remain private so it's impossible to say what led to his decision to delay medical intervention 9 months. It does say for his form of cancer the classical medical approaches have slim scientific study literature.
But it also says CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) has even slimmer: next to none in their language.
It's not. The obsession with bloodwork seems to be specific to certain countries (like the US). In most countries, where the medical system is focused less on charging people money and more on evidence based treatments, blood tests are done to find something specific, not to "see how a person is doing", as they care about the effects of overtreatment (unnecessary distress, surgeries, treatments).
Many people have this weird view of the "bloodwork" where they treat the results of them like a character screen in an RPG game.
i disagree because my dad got diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer with 300+ PSA values. This could've been diagnosed when it could still have been cured ( or managed) if they had done a simple blood test to "see how a person is doing" . blood tests are evidence based.
> where the medical system is focused less on charging people money and more on evidence based treatments, blood tests are done to find something specific, not to "see how a person is doing"
I am not sure what insurance you are using in USA but my insurance is super stingy about approving any blood tests that doctor doesn't think are super necessary. All the health influencers i mentioned in earlier comment seem to be paying out of pocket for tests like 'insulin sensitivity' because insurance doesn't pay for those.
I am not saying that "no random blood test has ever uncovered any dangerous disease", which is obviously not true. I am saying that when aggregated, on average many of the screening tests, including yearly bloodwork have more negative effects than positive.
The fact that your father got diagnosed too late is incredibly sad, and I truly feel for you, as that's the disease that took my grandfather too. But that does not offset the fact that if you screen people "yearly" you end up with more unnecessary interventions, painful tests, and potential false positives, and generally bad outcomes than if you don't do it.
You could just as easily find a story about someone who had an unnecessary blood test that revealed something potentially troubling, they went to have a more invasive tests that resulted in them getting hurt from treating what turned out to be a false positive.
Yes thats definitely true. The PSA test i mentioned is one such example of blood test causing over treatment. I think they used to start PSA tests at 40 but now they start much later because it was causing over diagnosis.
For example, there's evidence that on a population level routine screening for prostate cancer may do more harm than good, because it frequently isn't lethal, and the resulting interventions (often for false positives) can have a negative impact themselves.
> The American study found annual screening did not lower the chances of dying of prostate cancer.
> A recent Johns Hopkins University study found surprisingly high rates of hospitalization after prostate biopsies and a 12-fold greater risk of death in those who develop infections.
> "Yet in order to prevent one death from prostate cancer in the 1,000 men screened for PSA, the number of biopsies would double with 154 additional prostate biopsies, and, of 35 additional prostate cancers diagnosed, 12 additional cases of impotence and three additional cases of incontinence would occur. Thus, the harm from routine PSA testing can have a serious effect on the quality of life of patients and provides additional evidence against the use of organised screening for prostate cancer," he says.
yes recommendation now is not to avoid PSA test but to do PSA tests and do something called 'active surveillance' for low grade disease. Much has changed since 2013.
Natural bodybuilding is a thing. It does require eating a ton of protein though, so whether or not it's "living healthily" depends on what you consider a normal amount of poultry and fish a person should be eating on a daily basis.
That's not really how it works. Eating a good diet (yes, including protein) and having a good exercise routine and executing both strictly for a number of years can lead to have a good natural body. That does not lead to having a body like Thor though.
Not to mention that makeup, specific lighting, timed pumps and short term dieting tricks can be used for movies. How an actor looks on the day of a shoot isn't how they walk around looking.
If so, I suspect you could get a large fraction of the improvement gained from a population-wide deployment of these drugs, at zero cost, if everyone just stopped drinking alcohol. "But that's unreasonable!" Right, so if that's also required for taking this drug, then....
I take Metformin (not for diabetes, but weight and age) and my doc has never said a word about alcohol. A quick google suggests the possible bad interactions are diabetes related, so probably not applicable.
Oh, interesting. I guess the cases I know of its use are diabetes related, now that I think about it, but I'd seen "I take metformin, so no alcohol" enough times I thought it was a drug interaction.
colon cancer rates are rising amongst everyone, even thin people.
Yeah, look at all these super-old people like Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, Kissinger, Munger who pretty much have terrible diets, obese, no exercise yet still going strong, productive. Shows the power of genes. "Your BMI is below 23, therefore we will skip the colonoscopy and prostate/PSA exam and blood work," said no doctor ever (unless the doctor wants to get sued, I suppose).
You might think the very rich have bad diets, but I guarantee you it's probably way better than the vast majority of people. They can and do have personal cooks, nutritionists and shoppers give them optimized food all the time and drink a coke and have a burger in public once in a while to make you think they are 'just like you and me!'.
It's that underlying foundation that you don't see that gives them the margin to have a burger.
I don't think warren buffet has worked out a day in his life and has publicly said that he consumes 6 cans of coke everyday( not 'once in a while') and works 14hrs sitting. What exactly is the personal cook feeding him that is offsetting his lifestyle.
I don't buy your theory that secret to longevity is a personal chef or a nutrition expert.
I'm unfamiliar with the research around GLP1 drugs, but I my past reading about the long-term effects of metformin led me to a similar conclusion. Unfortunately, metformin causes me severe gastrointestinal issues that don't resolve themselves after a few weeks.
There are lots of surprising findings w/r/t pharmaceuticals if you start really digging. Lots of missed opportunity for overall improvement in the human condition that aren't being exploited.
Depends how bad the diarrhea is. I basically kind of lived that with the very spicy food in south east asia, along with the resultant better health & fat loss from the better diet.
We're seeing the most successful Big Pharma marketing campaign since OxyContin.
The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy
> From 1996 to 2001, Purdue conducted more than 40 national pain-management and speaker-training conferences at resorts in Florida, Arizona, and California. More than 5000 physicians, pharmacists, and nurses attended these all-expenses-paid symposia, where they were recruited and trained for Purdue's national speaker bureau.
> One of the cornerstones of Purdue's marketing plan was the use of sophisticated marketing data to influence physicians’ prescribing.
> Purdue “aggressively” promoted the use of opioids for use in the “non-malignant pain market.” A much larger market than that for cancer-related pain, the non–cancer-related pain market constituted 86% of the total opioid market in 1999. Purdue's promotion of OxyContin for the treatment of non–cancer-related pain contributed to a nearly tenfold increase in OxyContin prescriptions
> A consistent feature in the promotion and marketing of OxyContin was a systematic effort to minimize the risk
> Controlled drugs, with their potential for abuse and diversion, can pose public health risks that are different from—and more problematic than—those of uncontrolled drugs when they are overpromoted and highly prescribed.
No, but the ADD/ADHD stims are. I also had nausea all day and could not eat more than approx 1. slice of pizza for lunch and dinner up til age 16 on days that I took the smallest dose of methylpenidate. In summer, when I was not on it, I actually resumed average eating and growth. My growth chart, before age 8 starting it, was right around 50th percentile in height/weight, and by age 16, was was around bottom 5th percentile.
Did you experience nausea on them? Was it methylphenidate? Which formulation and dose? I had 1yr ritalin, 1yr adderall, and 6 yrs concerta 18mg. At this point the sight of "alza 18" on a small tan cylinder makes me want to puke.
It didn't give me nausea but it did give me dry mouth and made me not really want to eat. However, when I got home I was ravenous and would always eat two dinners.
Of course it doesn't imply anything directly about the drug, but it does implicate the pharma industry in willingness to distribute drugs that have long term side effects.
> Every day is a new day, every event a potential surprise...
This is a thought terminating cliche, and has no bearing on pharmacology and societal impact.
These drugs are about to be very heavily prescribed, and widely introduced - when, in fact, they should be slowly rolled out to those who need them the most. People who should be given this drug are those whose weight is so severe that it has immediate effects on negative health outcomes.
There are going to be people who want to drop a couple of BMI points in time for Summer without eating and exercise, and any doctor (or person) who enables this use in the short term (the next 5 years, at least) is irresponsible.
In fact, your example of penicillin is a perfect example: who cares about any potential downsides to a drug when not using the drug has the downside of death?
My wife is a doctor she’s never been paid by a pharmacy company.
It’s illegal to directly pay doctors for prescribing drugs. Pharmaceutical companies do pay some doctors for speaking gigs (a very small fraction of them).
The average doctor might get lunch in exchange for listening to a presentation. But I guarantee they aren’t there listening to a boring presentation because of a few dollars worth of food.
All these payments are public record, so you can look them up for any given doctor.
I had the same reaction. I minimize oxidative stress on my body by being selective about what I eat: having a bit less of some delicious things and eating a bit more of some boring foods that I know are good for me.
Also, fuck 'longevity.' The population of the world has doubled during my lifetime and this is a Bad Thing which is wiping out vast numbers of other species. Call me misanthropic if you like but humans are overrated and the maximization of our species' footprint is not a desirable outcome. I expect to live for a shorter time than my parents have (partly due to my own choices, partly environmental factors) and while that's disappointing in some ways I've been fortunate enough to enjoy reasonably good health and resultant quality of life. My idea of biological success is no living to the greatest age possible but having sufficient fitness and autonomy to be physically and mentally active while I'm alive. I have enough experience of injury and near-death situations to know that I'm OK with dying, and have no intention of begging to escape the inevitable.
Also, fuck 'longevity.' The population of the world has doubled during my lifetime and this is a Bad Thing which is wiping out vast numbers of other species.
More about our socioeconomic and political structure than raw population numbers.
Every piece of meat, for example, require the conversion of plant matter into meat. There's going to be energy loss. If we eat more plants and less meat, we would pollute less, and less meat animals and presumably more wild animals.
My idea of biological success is no living to the greatest ago possible but having sufficient fitness and autonomy to be physically and mentally active while I'm alive.
Unless you die in an accident, you're going to live longer due to being healthier.
"Unless you die in an accident, you're going to live longer due to being healthier."
You are making assumptions, about his lifestyle choices.
Also, medicine might have improved, but so have subjectivly stress and fear and terror (economic outlook, climate change, etc..) A good reminder to turn that smartphone off now.
I'm not sure that I am healthier than my parents. Some of my life/lifestyle choices have likely contributed to superior health, others have done the opposite.
Man, I'm really sick of this outlook. There's a whole solar system here full of unlimited space and resources. A hundred years from now, if someone feels like it they'll be able to live in an O'Neill cylinder the size of San Francisco by themselves, and it won't be any weirder than /r/vandwellers today
You've changed my mind. I now plan to live to at least 150 so I can be around to say 'I told you so' in 2123.
Seriously, 30-40 years ago I would have eagerly agreed with you. Much as I continue to like technology and feel optimistic about it overall, I greatly doubt that a century from now there will be any non-military space colonies in existence; long term existence is more likely to exist in silico than for biological bodies. One major influence on my thinking about this is the fact that we landed people on the Moon from 1969 to 1972 and then just gave up on it for 50 years. Now in middle age, I cannot overstate my sense of betrayal by earlier generations that decided to devote themselves to financial engineering instead.
> I expect to live for a shorter time than my parents have (partly due to my own choices, partly environmental factors) and while that's disappointing in some ways I've been fortunate enough to enjoy reasonably good health and resultant quality of life.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This is a ridiculous comment. Statistically, there is no weight loss strategy that has been found to work long term at the population level except for bariatric surgery (and now, apparently, these drugs, but we'll see how things look in a few years). Sure, one individual person can pull it off with enough willpower and support and luck. But at a population level, we know definitively that "grind it out with exercise, nutrition, and therapy" is not an effective public health strategy.
We are biochemical machines that evolved in a food environment completely unlike the modern world, and that's before you get into possible chemical factors in the environment. If these drugs continue to prove safe—or even they just prove to be less bad than obesity and more effective than other techniques—then there's no reason to dismiss them.
Congratulations on being better than the rest of us slobs, but what works for you may not work for everyone.
Never said I'm better. My point is that these solutions are driven by people looking for easy answers to a hard problem. I refuse to believe people need them but only want them and that may be enough for some.
You're free to come to that conclusion but that is not my intention. I'm not a better person than OP but I'm arguing there is a better way to attain their goals.
> But at a population level, we know definitively that "grind it out with exercise, nutrition, and therapy" is not an effective public health strategy.
I'm pretty sure most people skip the therapy. Maybe that's the problem. Changing your relationship with your lifestyle and your food involves a commitment to changing yourself.
Were I in that position, I'd be more inclined to try psychedelics to change how I think than I would new drugs that mess with metabolism.
Another tack we could take is to change the available food options and tax the hell out of problematic foods and heavily subsidize healthier foods. That's a population-level policy that will almost certainly have long term population level effects.
The carnivore diet (eat only liver, eggs, and ribeye steaks, and drink only water) would work to cure obesity at a population level. It would also end chronic disease in society.
Maybe losing weight the old fashioned way builds character, but so do plenty of other things. Living as a subsistence farmer also probably builds character because you’re taking an active role in producing food that maintains your body.
Instead I choose to take advantage of technology to provide food and shelter, so that I can use the extra time to focus on other pursuits.
I agree with this for overweight people, but for obese people, the chance that they will follow the "right" way is near zero.
The alternative comes down to being obese (which is a death sentence) or medical interventions. It's true that this only solves the symptoms and not the actual problem, but it will probably save lives.
Whether it's a pill a day or a run, you are still doing something and thus the journey. Some of us are blessed with hands-off metabolisms and some of us, it's a constant battle. Best of luck to you tho.
>I'm not sure at what point in your life weight management was lauded as "easy". You have some tools in your toolbox on how to lose weight naturally (diet, exercise, different eating cycles) but you decided that these are too "hard" and opted for magic pills.
Why shouldn't technology make it easy?
>Just a shame to see people make progress in their weight loss journey the right(er) ways then succumb to weakness and opt for voodoo.
For anyone that wants to lose weight without taking drugs, just try eating only eggs, liver, and ribeye steaks with salt and drinking only water. You can eat to satiety on this diet - in fact you can just stuff yourself as much as you want - and you will lose weight and get in shape. Also, you'll find that it is impossible to eat a more nutrient dense and nutritionally complete diet than liver, eggs, and ribeye steaks. Remember never to drink a calorie.
I have a theory that the Nature group, ostensibly a bunch of academic journals, actually wants to become the NYTimes. They have chosen a custom font, they publish increasingly editorialised political content, and they produce these hype train news pieces which really lack objectivism or scientific rigour. Scientists should consider carefully what is appearing alongside their research, and the ultimate result of an unassailable, centralised academic publisher with opaque editorial practices.
7 years later, I had a bad ankle injury and regained weight to about 29 BMI. This time I lost weight by doing an “eat every other day” diet. This was also extremely challenging, but easier than just counting calories and working out. After Covid and a lack of exercise I was back to BMI 30. I started taking tirzeparide this summer and have gone from BMI 31 to BMI 26 and still dropping. This is by far the easiest way to lose weight. The side effects for the first 3 months are quite bad, and include off and on strong nausea, extreme fatigue, brain fog, and constipation. I was eating <1k calories per day for a long time and feeling full. I expect to be on this drug long term. My blood work shows extreme improvements in cholesterol, BP, and other key health indicators. I believe that everyone, even the skinny folks, should be on GLP1 drugs for the longevity effects. They changed they induce in diet reduce the oxidative stress on the human body, even if the person is already thin.