dudeThe Risk Too Many People Are Taking With Ozempic
AlkThis article boils down to “be careful, you might get a tummy ache” and ignores the fact that glp1 is saving millions of lives from heart disease, stroke, and other obesity-related issues.
Did you read the article? It is warning about over-prescribing to people who are not at risk of heart disease, stroke, and other obesity-related issues.
I think it’s well understood that people who produce glp1 correctly can still be obese and need weight loss and these drugs help with that. That’s the whole point of the drug. To provide more glp1 than is needed to lose weight easily.
these drugs help with that
or they cause gastrointestinal conditions in these people, resulting in the weight loss (and malnutrition) that is a symptom of the new condition rather than the drug itself.
Dieting is literally effective 100% of the time, thanks to Newton and his second law and all that.
Sticking to it is another thing entirely - but let’s not pretend words don’t have meaning anymore
etherphonDownvoted for the truth, ouch. You are right of course, but no one want to admit it I guess.
Go find me a study that backs up your truth. Easy parameters, find one that shows a 10% reduction in body mass that is sustainable for two years by a quarter of the participants. Otherwise you’re just spouting unscientific crap out of ignorance and should really just not speak on topics you don’t know anything about.
You guys are talking about two different things. He says changing your diet is effective and it is.
You’re saying hardly anyone sticks with the diet changes after losing weight so they end up regaining the weight and that’s also true.
Though I’m going to add that a lot of the reason people fail to keep the weight off without drugs is we’re ok with companies outright lying about how healthy their product is. You should not be able to pretend that highly processed crap full of sugar is good for you. It’s really obvious that hardly anyone reads nutritional info and does the math on sugar content by weight.
There’s also a ton of psychological aspects that make keeping weight off harder. Your brain will literally self sabotage you repeatedly because humans are designed to gain and keep weight, not lose it.
Adding more exercise? Well that must mean we need to eat more! Eating less? Well obviously we’re starving, so now your brain will tell your body to move less. Lost weight for awhile? Clearly we need to slowly increase portion sizes over time.
Long term weight loss is a literally a struggle against yourself and your body does not want you to win.
You guys are talking about two different things. He says changing your diet is effective and it is.
The point was that the drugs help fight the effects of obesity by keeping weight off permanently. If dieting cannot do the same, then it isn’t effective at fighting that threat. Losing weight for 2 years and then relapsing isn’t all that helpful in fighting the long term health effects of obesity.
We are talking about different things. I’m talking about evidence and they’re not.
and it is.
You say in your very next line people stop doing it and that’s why it doesn’t work. Yes. These interventions are not sustainable. If that’s your gotcha, that people can’t stay on them but crash dieting, starvation, disordered eating, etc is a reasonable idea, then that’s a lazy strawman. If you don’t have a scientific study to back up that dieting works for actual people, please shut up. I’m really sick of people proping up bullshit without ever trying to figure out if it’s true. If you can’t find evidence of a diet that actual people can do that results in a 10% loss over 2 years for even a third of the participants, then it’s time to update what you think. Short of surgery, nothing works long term for weight loss. Even Ozempic has to be taken for as long as you want the weight off, it stops working for some people after 6 months to a year, and about 75% of people stop taking it within two years.
Dieting is effective in a vacuum. Much of the time dieting isn’t effective because people are too busy, uninformed, too stressed, working 2 jobs, have mental disorders, don’t live near accessible sources of healthy food, have incredibly low willpower, are being lied to by food companies, lied to by their governments health systems, coerced into an unhealthy but profitable lifestyle, or all of the above.
Sure you could say “well just fix all of that and you’d be healthy” and you’d be right. But we all know that’s not going to happen, especially en masse.
Semaglutide helps people in those situations avoid the consequences of obesity. Sure it may have its own downsides. But it’s the easiest of many solutions, often the only one that will feasibly work for someone.
Not everyone can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and get healthy without help. If they could, the world wouldn’t be so obese on average. You have to acknowledge this is a mostly global issue and traditional solutions would have fixed it by now if they always worked.
Studies show dieting doesn’t work for most of the population. Studies have shown this for the last 60 years. Sure, it works in a vacuum, but that’s not where real people live.
Its because people lie about their diet homie willingly or out of ignorance because they misjudge portion sizes etc,
And what do you suppose we do about that? It has become a global epidemic. Just “get good” and start eating healthy? Clearly that does actually work, and yet obesity is more of a problem now than it has ever been.
Lol losing weight has nothing to do with “eating healthy” im noticing a trend here.
absGeekNZlosing weight has nothing to do with “eating healthy”
I’m not sure what you are getting at with this statement.
How else does one lose weight then?
I think they are trying to say that you can technically lose weight without changing how you eat by spending more calories. Which… is technically true. But obviously doesn’t relate to the point I was making, and I feel like they’re purposefully avoiding talking about the fact that the biological mechanics of how one loses weight have nothing to do with the general population’s inability to lose weight with willpower alone.
They’re trying to spring some sort of “gotcha” on the fact that I didn’t over-explain my terminology in a throwaway example, ignoring the rest of my comment and the meaning behind it.
Obviously it does. “Eating healthy” in this case means eating fewer calories than you burn. But don’t just pick at one small part of one example and not acknowledge the rest of my comment. What do you suppose we do about the obesity epidemic? How do we save as many lives as possible? Many things have been tried, and many have failed. Including telling people to lose weight and how to do it themselves.
People are lazy. That’s it. CICO works by definition.
Your oversimplification of complex biological processes is mindbogglingly ignorant. Please find a study that shows a diet that produces results that are over a 10% reduction in body mass and with results that last for over two years. If you can’t do even that miniscule baseline, if you can’t find one diet that has actual scientific macking, please stfu about subjects you know next to nothing about and have no evidence for. I know it’s really difficult for you to understand concepts that can’t be boiled down to a single sentence, but let’s try this one time, okay?
Energy in = energy out is Newton’s law, not mine. You’re arguing about something else it seems
So couldn’t find one?
A law of thermodynamics?
Are you trying to have a fight? Because lol
Yeah, I want evidence that’s weight loss is as simple as repeating that phrase that without understanding it. I don’t think people quoting it a) know what it means b) understand biology, psychology, hormones, disease. I’m tired of idiots going unchallenged on their dumb ideas.
If you eat less you will weigh less. That is always true because of the laws of the universe.
I don’t make the rules
I don’t need people to eat less, I just need folks to understand that eating less is the answer.
The how is irrelevant to me
Everyone knows eating less is the answer. We have for decades. And yet, the world is obese. You’re not revealing anything new or revolutionary. Society has accepted this as truth long ago, and now we are tackling a different problem - how to keep as many people as possible realistically able to lose weight and reduce the risk of heart disease. Having the willpower to eat less isn’t the answer for 30+% of the population.
I’m not trying to reveal anything, I’m just stating facts and people’s emotions are flaring up for reasons I will never know. This whole back and forth is just so painfully weird.
Why do you think everyone in here is so emotional? Why are laws of thermodynamics so emotionally hot for all the people in this thread?
I am not talking about obesity, nor was I ever, for some strange reason that’s where you keep steering. Why do you want to talk about fat people, when I’m discussing energy conservation?
This whole conversation is about obesity. The article is about losing weight with ozempic, which is to treat obesity. My top comment was about obesity. Everyone else is talking about obesity. The reason you’re getting pushback from everyone is because you’re purposely ignoring the topic at hand and arguing pedantics about energy conservation when nobody else is talking about that, or cares about that. You’re preaching to the choir. Everyone knows you can lose weight by eating fewer calories than you burn. It’s common sense. But that’s not what the whole discussion is about.
I’m also not sure what you’re referring to about getting emotional, except for maybe that one guy who told someone to STFU.
We agree that yes, the laws of thermodynamics exist and you are correct. Now how about you come and discuss what everyone else is discussing and contribute something to the thread? If you don’t feel like discussing obesity and real-world weight loss tactics, that’s perfectly fine. I’m sure there are plenty of other posts and threads talking about thermodynamics that you can join.
FINALLY you get it. My whole point was that thermodynamics is always correct, and if you reduce what goes in that’s the only way to make an organic system lose mass.
Thank you for finally seeing my point. This isn’t at all about weight loss, it’s about emotions for you people.
Makes no sense to me
Again, there are no emotions running high here. From the beginning you misunderstood the point, didn’t listen to anyone in the conversation, and failed to admit you were wrong.
Nobody was ever arguing with you claiming that thermodynamics didn’t apply. Every single person here understands that thermodynamics applies. You are wrong because you came in arguing something that nobody else was talking about. We were talking about apples and you came in here, emotions flaring, yelling about oranges.
This quite literally is all about weight loss. It’s not about physics or thermodynamics. It’s about weight loss in the real world, and I believe even after reading this comment you will still refuse to acknowledge this.
Agree to disagree. Have the day you deserve out there
And to be rich just make more money than you spend. True if you ignore a bunch of things. And useless.
That’s just how to go net positive, not sure this landed
Complex biology is emergent from and constrained by the laws of physics.
So you think a single phrase can encompass something useful in such a complex system? Is it better to be technically true or actually useful?
So you think a single phrase can encompass something useful in such a complex system?
Yes. Absolutely. So do all dieticians and nutritionists, as this is the principle that all diets are based on, because it is correct.
Of course “eating less than you burn” works. That’s not the point here. The point is that despite knowing this as fact, the world continues to become more obese. “Oh it’s because people are lazy” Sure, then how do we treat that? How do we save lives from this global epidemic of obesity? Ignoring the fact that humans naturally can have a difficult time losing weight even while knowing the right things to do isn’t going to solve the problem.
The mechanics of how weight loss works mean nothing when you don’t have the time, ability, or mental stability to enact the changes required. You can’t just blame individual people for this. It’s a large portion of the entire world that is experiencing this issue. When it’s one person with a problem, it could be their fault. When it’s billions of people, maybe consider acknowledging that it’s a systemic issue that cannot be solved with willpower alone.
“Oh it’s because people are lazy”
You can’t just blame individual people for this.
I haven’t blamed anyone or spoken about laziness. I’ve only stated what is true, with respect to biology and physics.
Of course “eating less than you burn” works. That’s not the point here.
This actually was the point here, from the other commenter:
- “Your oversimplification of complex biological processes is mindbogglingly ignorant.”
- “if you can’t find one diet that has actual scientific macking, please stfu about subjects you know next to nothing about and have no evidence for”.
The other commenter seemed to allude that biology is too complex for thermodynamics to apply, which is of course incorrect, and that is what I responded to. Dieting does work and is always effective if one maintains a caloric deficit. My understanding of their comment was that they were not arguing that dieting is hard due to systemic factors that lead to unsuccessful dieting attempts, but that “complex biological processes” prevent a correctly maintained dieting from working. Again, that is completely false.
Obviously people struggle with dieting for many different reasons, and there are valid reasons why people would benefit from or choose other options.
“if you can’t find one diet that has actual scientific macking, please stfu about subjects you know next to nothing about and have no evidence for”.
While a bit rude, this point by the other commenter is the one where there’s a disconnect between us.
Whether or not a diet works does not just come down to the biological mechanics of if sticking to it means you’ll lose weight. Humans’ ability to stick to it is still part of the diet. If humans can’t, collectively, stick to a diet long enough to make it work, the diet doesn’t work. If humans could turn off parts of their brain and follow diets like robots, that would be fine. But the point of contention here is if diets work. And largely, they do not, for reasons unrelated to calories in/out.
Because of biology and psychology, humans cannot reliably follow diets, at least not a significant portion of the population. (Though there are non-biological factors too.)
The other commenter is not arguing that thermodynamics do not apply. They are arguing that diets themselves do not work because people cannot stick to them. This does not mean that “diets work, you just need to stick to them”. If people cannot stick to them, the diets don’t work.
Because of biology and psychology, humans cannot reliably follow diets, at least not a significant portion of the population. (Though there are non-biological factors too.)
I’d argue that almost all of these factors are not directly related to biology or psychology at all. The evidence of this is obesity rates rapidly changing to become an epidemic in recent history, despite human biology remaining the same. According to the CDC, 13% of people were obese in 1960, but over 40% were obese in 2025.
Yes, there are definitely non-biological factors here. But humans evolved to conserve energy. When faced with hyper-palitable, super calorie dense foods, humans have an overwhelming urge to consume, and keep consuming. And once you’re past a certain point, it becomes increasingly MORE difficult to cut down on eating, all because of biological functions. Of course the initial variable that allows for this is the availability of those foods, but the fact that humans can’t resist them is purely biological. That’s just one of many reasons.
Others relate to psychology, which is kind of on the edge of biology.
The point is that through no fault of the victims of obesity much of the time, they are trapped in a cycle. And semaglutide is a new way to escape from that cycle. If dieting worked, obesity would not be at the rates it’s at today.
One solution is to “stop making those foods available” of course. It’s a systemic issue, breaking the chain at any point would help. But if you’re some lower middle class average person, your BMI is crazy high, and you have a choice between “joining a political movement to pass laws against harmful foods”, “spend time, energy, and stress you don’t have to spare following a diet that you aren’t strong enough to follow” and “taking an injection once a week”, the choice is clear.
But humans evolved to conserve energy. When faced with hyper-palitable, super calorie dense foods, humans have an overwhelming urge to consume, and keep consuming. And once you’re past a certain point, it becomes increasingly MORE difficult to cut down on eating, all because of biological functions. Of course the initial variable that allows for this is the availability of those foods, but the fact that humans can’t resist them is purely biological. That’s just one of many reasons.
This is an extreme exaggeration and not a real factor that makes dieting a systemic problem, evidenced by the majority of people who are not obese.
It’s one example, but it’s not extreme. Many first-world countries have an obesity rate above 20%, many above 30%, and some have a rate above 40%, like the US, Egypt, and others. When 30% of a country are affected by the same health issue, it’s a systemic issue. And biology plays a huge role in that. Most people know how bad obesity is for them. They’re not making the conscious decision to become obese. They are making millions of micro-decisions guided by their mood, hunger, food availability, and willpower to consume calorie-dense foods. Much of that is their biological urge to consume overpowering their better judgement in the moment, made possible by factors outside of their direct control like availability of unhealthy foods.
But we’re getting away from the point of this whole comment chain. The point is that dieting doesn’t work. Despite official recommendations by nearly all first world countries’ governments, and most real doctors out there, 30% of many countries (and 40% of my country) are obese. The point of this comment chain is that that number exists because dieting isn’t working for the modern world. And semaglutide is one solution that is saving lives.
If it’s useful for weight loss universally, please provide evidence. All I’m asking for is a study that shows saying the same thing over and over out of context has made anybody lose any weight. If it’s such a bulletproof concept, than should be easy. If you can’t do that, then your idea sucks.
Dieting is effective in a vacuum. Much of the time dieting isn’t effective because people are too busy, uninformed, too stressed, working 2 jobs, have mental disorders, don’t live near accessible sources of healthy food, have incredibly low willpower, are being lied to by food companies, lied to by their governments health systems, coerced into an unhealthy but profitable lifestyle, or all of the above.
Sure you could say “well just fix all of that and you’d be healthy” and you’d be right. But we all know that’s not going to happen, especially en masse.
Semaglutide helps people in those situations avoid the consequences of obesity. Sure it may have its own downsides. But it’s the easiest of many solutions, often the only one that will feasibly work for someone.
Not everyone can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and get healthy without help. If they could, the world wouldn’t be so obese on average. You have to acknowledge this is a mostly global issue and traditional solutions would have fixed it by now if they always worked.
you know obesity is really only a US problem? Right?
How about you actually do some research before you make claims like that? It’s a bit worse in the US, but obesity is a global problem. Any country with an obese population of 20% or more of the total population I would consider as having a serious national obesity problem. Several first world countries are at above 30%. A couple are above 40%, including the US. Even half of that is still in “crisis” territory.
Newton’s second law is force is equal to mass times acceleration. You’re probably wrong about some other things, too.
Dieting is effective if you can stick to it. I watch my calorie intake and have no problems staying at a healthy weight. Even considering that I go out drinking practically every weekend. I also have the advantage that I don’t really think about food until I’m starving and even then it’s not an issue for me to put off for a few more hours.
That is not the case for many people. There are so many things working against us when it comes to eating healthy. Fast food is all designed to be as addictive as possible. Meal planning and preparation takes a lot more time and healthy food is expensive (although at this point all food is expensive so maybe that one is a wash). People’s lives are stressful as fuck and they have so much to deal that uses up their mental energy. That additional stress from trying to maintain a diet is just too much. Food brings them joy so they overeat. These drugs help to curb their appetite without the additional stress. I see no problem there even if they shouldn’t technically need the help in a perfect world. The world’s far from perfect and we don’t know what people are dealing with.
Pissed off some huskly lemmings with that.
You mean when people refuse to change their diets and restrict caloric intake.
Have you read any of the other comments here? People aren’t just “refusing” to change their diets. I’m not going to type my response again but see my comment here. Or maybe this comment by someone else. Or maybe this one. The point is that when 20+% of the population are afflicted with something, it’s not a problem of them “refusing” to fix it themselves. It’s a systemic issue.
