You must log in or # to comment.
This 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.
“be careful, you might get a tummy ache”
Wow. Pretty dismissive. We don’t know the long term effects of these drugs.
GLP-1 agonists may cause persistent gastrointestinal issues (nausea, constipation), muscle loss, and severe, rare risks including pancreatitis, gallbladder disease, and possible kidney damage. Studies also show a higher risk of stomach paralysis (gastroparesis) and potential thyroid tumor risks, necessitating ongoing monitoring.
Did you read the article? It is warning about over-prescribing to people who already naturally produce GLP-1 correctly.
If a patient’s body is already producing GLP-1 at normal or elevated levels, prescribing a long-acting agonist isn’t correcting a deficit; it may be amplifying a signal that’s already there. Are the potential effects of that a risk the prescriber and patient are willing to take on?
I am not arguing that these drugs are dangerous and should be restricted. I am arguing that the question of who should receive them has not been asked with nearly enough precision, and that a baseline GLP-1 measurement is an obvious, low-cost starting point.
Seems pretty reasonable?
GLP-1 has already been exploited for 50 years, you know it as the processed food revolution, aka why half of you reading this have problems with your own refined sugar consumption but feel powerless to change it. We need more research but this is a weapon in a war that started a while ago.
That’s interesting, I’ll look into that more.
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 weight loss (and malnutrition) that is a symptom of the new problem rather than the drug itself. If you don’t have GLP-1 problems, then GLP-1 is not a solution, and dieting will be effective.
The entire point of glp1 is to prescribe when dieting isn’t effective.
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.
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
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 husky lemmings with that.
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?
Newton’s second law is force is equal to mass times acceleration. You’re probably wrong about some other things, too.
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.
People are lazy. That’s it. CICO works by definition.
Its because people lie about their diet homie willingly or out of ignorance because they misjudge portion sizes etc,
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?
Complex biology is emergent from and constrained by the laws of physics.
There is no process, no matter how complex, that does not abide by thermodynamics.
If you burn more calories of energy than you consume, your body mass will decrease.
Energy in = energy out is Newton’s law, not mine. You’re arguing about something else it seems
Downvoted for the truth, ouch. You are right of course, but no one want to admit it I guess.
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.
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.
Bro wants his magic drugs with zero consequences. American style.
Do we have any implications regarding long term health effects for non-diabetics?
We do not (at least with an acceptable sample size), which does make it a bit of a gamble. However, for some people with severe obesity I’d wager the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, with all of the severe issues that can happen because of that level of obesity. If I had to deal with the drastically increased risk of heart disease et al or a yet to be discovered drawback, I’d go with the yet to be discovered one personally.
