Ozempic/Semaglutide results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does it just make you eat less? Basically an appetite suppressant?

Or does it do more than that?

Read the thread.

I did and most comments mentioned not being hungry.

It mostly works by reducing appetite and therefore caloric input. Yes, it makes you less hungry and makes you get full faster. It also has a stabilizing affect on blood glucose which probably reduces cravings.

All this. And it slows the emptying of the stomach, so you feel full faster.

Thanks. So a few different mechanisms to make it easier to reduce caloric intake.

Yes. But when it comes down to it it reduces how much you take in. It’s not changing your metabolism or how you store fat. You don’t eat the same things in the same amount as you did before and still lose weight.

I don't understand how it is not changing your metabolism? If the end result is that you are taking in fewer calories, doesn't that always slow your metabolism over time as it adjusts?

It's like the medicine could make you eat less and less until you are eating almost nothing... And then the day you stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you would immediately gain?

?? What are you talking about? It doesn’t make you eat less and less until you’re eating almost nothing.

I mean, if the medicine is effective because you are ultimately eating less, which is what people are saying is the end result of not feeling hungry or having their stomach empty more slowly, then how does that not slow down your metabolism over time? Or is there something about the medicine that keeps your metabolism the same even while eating less?

It slows your metabolism the same way any weight loss from a calorie deficit slows your metabolism.

[Anonymous]

Anyone successfully get insurance coverage? How? Which insurance?

[Anonymous]

United Health care would not cover anything weight loss related. I am not diabetic. I am on Qsymia and I private pay.

[Anonymous]

I have been on Ozempic for one month. I have lost weight.
I decided to stop taking it. My sense is that it is not safe. I don’t poop. Only pass (a lot) of gas. I am nauseous and have no appetite (which is the good part). I lost 20 lbs prior to going on Ozempic and I’m going to go back to the old fashioned way. Which is hard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been on Ozempic for one month. I have lost weight.
I decided to stop taking it. My sense is that it is not safe. I don’t poop. Only pass (a lot) of gas. I am nauseous and have no appetite (which is the good part). I lost 20 lbs prior to going on Ozempic and I’m going to go back to the old fashioned way. Which is hard!

Oh okay, your sense that it’s unsafe trumps years of data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does it just make you eat less? Basically an appetite suppressant?

Or does it do more than that?

Read the thread.

I did and most comments mentioned not being hungry.

It mostly works by reducing appetite and therefore caloric input. Yes, it makes you less hungry and makes you get full faster. It also has a stabilizing affect on blood glucose which probably reduces cravings.

All this. And it slows the emptying of the stomach, so you feel full faster.

Thanks. So a few different mechanisms to make it easier to reduce caloric intake.

Yes. But when it comes down to it it reduces how much you take in. It’s not changing your metabolism or how you store fat. You don’t eat the same things in the same amount as you did before and still lose weight.

I don't understand how it is not changing your metabolism? If the end result is that you are taking in fewer calories, doesn't that always slow your metabolism over time as it adjusts?

It's like the medicine could make you eat less and less until you are eating almost nothing... And then the day you stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you would immediately gain?

?? What are you talking about? It doesn’t make you eat less and less until you’re eating almost nothing.

I mean, if the medicine is effective because you are ultimately eating less, which is what people are saying is the end result of not feeling hungry or having their stomach empty more slowly, then how does that not slow down your metabolism over time? Or is there something about the medicine that keeps your metabolism the same even while eating less?

It slows your metabolism the same way any weight loss from a calorie deficit slows your metabolism.

So, isn't that detrimental in the long run? Like when you finally stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you will gain weight quickly?

Or are people literally planning to stay on it forever?

[Anonymous]

You have to take it forever. This is why drug companies are so excited about it.
Victoza was marketed as a weight loss drug 10 years ago. It’s similar and no it’s not a miracle drug.
The recent press and push for the drug is a lot of good marketing. Downsides are at the very bottom of articles….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does it just make you eat less? Basically an appetite suppressant?

Or does it do more than that?

Read the thread.

I did and most comments mentioned not being hungry.

It mostly works by reducing appetite and therefore caloric input. Yes, it makes you less hungry and makes you get full faster. It also has a stabilizing affect on blood glucose which probably reduces cravings.

All this. And it slows the emptying of the stomach, so you feel full faster.

Thanks. So a few different mechanisms to make it easier to reduce caloric intake.

Yes. But when it comes down to it it reduces how much you take in. It’s not changing your metabolism or how you store fat. You don’t eat the same things in the same amount as you did before and still lose weight.

I don't understand how it is not changing your metabolism? If the end result is that you are taking in fewer calories, doesn't that always slow your metabolism over time as it adjusts?

It's like the medicine could make you eat less and less until you are eating almost nothing... And then the day you stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you would immediately gain?

?? What are you talking about? It doesn’t make you eat less and less until you’re eating almost nothing.

I mean, if the medicine is effective because you are ultimately eating less, which is what people are saying is the end result of not feeling hungry or having their stomach empty more slowly, then how does that not slow down your metabolism over time? Or is there something about the medicine that keeps your metabolism the same even while eating less?

It slows your metabolism the same way any weight loss from a calorie deficit slows your metabolism.

So, isn't that detrimental in the long run? Like when you finally stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you will gain weight quickly?

Or are people literally planning to stay on it forever?

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. Is it detrimental in the long run to lose weight at all because it lowers your metabolism? That’s why maintaining weight loss is so hard.

And yes—data so far indicates it’s a lifelong drug for weight loss. Once you are off the drug your appetite is no longer controlled and your body starts to fight to get back to your higher, set point weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does it just make you eat less? Basically an appetite suppressant?

Or does it do more than that?

Read the thread.

I did and most comments mentioned not being hungry.

It mostly works by reducing appetite and therefore caloric input. Yes, it makes you less hungry and makes you get full faster. It also has a stabilizing affect on blood glucose which probably reduces cravings.

All this. And it slows the emptying of the stomach, so you feel full faster.

Thanks. So a few different mechanisms to make it easier to reduce caloric intake.

Yes. But when it comes down to it it reduces how much you take in. It’s not changing your metabolism or how you store fat. You don’t eat the same things in the same amount as you did before and still lose weight.

I don't understand how it is not changing your metabolism? If the end result is that you are taking in fewer calories, doesn't that always slow your metabolism over time as it adjusts?

It's like the medicine could make you eat less and less until you are eating almost nothing... And then the day you stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you would immediately gain?

?? What are you talking about? It doesn’t make you eat less and less until you’re eating almost nothing.

I mean, if the medicine is effective because you are ultimately eating less, which is what people are saying is the end result of not feeling hungry or having their stomach empty more slowly, then how does that not slow down your metabolism over time? Or is there something about the medicine that keeps your metabolism the same even while eating less?

It slows your metabolism the same way any weight loss from a calorie deficit slows your metabolism.

So, isn't that detrimental in the long run? Like when you finally stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you will gain weight quickly?

Or are people literally planning to stay on it forever?

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. Is it detrimental in the long run to lose weight at all because it lowers your metabolism? That’s why maintaining weight loss is so hard.

And yes—data so far indicates it’s a lifelong drug for weight loss. Once you are off the drug your appetite is no longer controlled and your body starts to fight to get back to your higher, set point weight.

+1 this is why the people who want it for 10-20 pounds are shortsighted. It’s only worth it to take a drug for the rest of your life if you are so overweight that your chances of ever being a healthy weight without tools like GLP-1 or weight loss surgery are slim to none. This is the camp that I’m in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on Ozempic for one month. I have lost weight.
I decided to stop taking it. My sense is that it is not safe. I don’t poop. Only pass (a lot) of gas. I am nauseous and have no appetite (which is the good part). I lost 20 lbs prior to going on Ozempic and I’m going to go back to the old fashioned way. Which is hard!

Oh okay, your sense that it’s unsafe trumps years of data.

Yes. My sense that it is unsafe because of what I am seeing it do to my body. Data from drug companies should not impress anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:United Health care would not cover anything weight loss related. I am not diabetic. I am on Qsymia and I private pay.

I don’t understand this. A healthy weight prevents so many issues they’ll pay for down the road. I hope it changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does it just make you eat less? Basically an appetite suppressant?

Or does it do more than that?

Read the thread.

I did and most comments mentioned not being hungry.

It mostly works by reducing appetite and therefore caloric input. Yes, it makes you less hungry and makes you get full faster. It also has a stabilizing affect on blood glucose which probably reduces cravings.

All this. And it slows the emptying of the stomach, so you feel full faster.

Thanks. So a few different mechanisms to make it easier to reduce caloric intake.

Yes. But when it comes down to it it reduces how much you take in. It’s not changing your metabolism or how you store fat. You don’t eat the same things in the same amount as you did before and still lose weight.

I don't understand how it is not changing your metabolism? If the end result is that you are taking in fewer calories, doesn't that always slow your metabolism over time as it adjusts?

It's like the medicine could make you eat less and less until you are eating almost nothing... And then the day you stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you would immediately gain?

?? What are you talking about? It doesn’t make you eat less and less until you’re eating almost nothing.

I mean, if the medicine is effective because you are ultimately eating less, which is what people are saying is the end result of not feeling hungry or having their stomach empty more slowly, then how does that not slow down your metabolism over time? Or is there something about the medicine that keeps your metabolism the same even while eating less?

It slows your metabolism the same way any weight loss from a calorie deficit slows your metabolism.

So, isn't that detrimental in the long run? Like when you finally stop taking it, your metabolism is super slow and you will gain weight quickly?

Or are people literally planning to stay on it forever?

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. Is it detrimental in the long run to lose weight at all because it lowers your metabolism? That’s why maintaining weight loss is so hard.

And yes—data so far indicates it’s a lifelong drug for weight loss. Once you are off the drug your appetite is no longer controlled and your body starts to fight to get back to your higher, set point weight.

I guess I meant detrimental from the perspective of trying to get off the medicine eventually. I didn't realize it had to be taken forever, thanks for explaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on Ozempic for one month. I have lost weight.
I decided to stop taking it. My sense is that it is not safe. I don’t poop. Only pass (a lot) of gas. I am nauseous and have no appetite (which is the good part). I lost 20 lbs prior to going on Ozempic and I’m going to go back to the old fashioned way. Which is hard!

Oh okay, your sense that it’s unsafe trumps years of data.

Yes. My sense that it is unsafe because of what I am seeing it do to my body. Data from drug companies should not impress anyone.

I was in one of the clinical trials for Wegovy for 2 years and now in a trial for Mournjaro (will be a different name) and love what it does for my body. Annnnnd I poop all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:United Health care would not cover anything weight loss related. I am not diabetic. I am on Qsymia and I private pay.

I don’t understand this. A healthy weight prevents so many issues they’ll pay for down the road. I hope it changes.

Agree. I'm in primary care and have to deal (unsuccessfully, usually) with prior authorization and medical necessity. _why_ BCBS, Aetna, etc. would push back against these prescriptions for long-time obese patients is truly beyond my understanding.

I mean, would BCBS rather pay for the looming type 2 diabetes that's right around the corner, guaranteed? With its attendant chronic kidney disease, glaucoma and wounds? Or how about the double knee replacements that are likely to come? Maybe Aetna and Cigna just really enjoy writing the checks for all the cancer treatments made necessary by obesity (colon, most breast, uterine, pancreatic).

It's really, really easy and straightforward to submit documentation that Jane Doe is obese and has one related chronic disease (even simple osteoarthritis). But the insurers fight even that! A BMI of 35 is obese, full stop. Yet coverage is routinely denied on the first submission and sometimes on subsequent attempts.

They're shooting themselves in the feet, and I feel like there's a reason hiding in plain sight but I can't identify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:United Health care would not cover anything weight loss related. I am not diabetic. I am on Qsymia and I private pay.

I don’t understand this. A healthy weight prevents so many issues they’ll pay for down the road. I hope it changes.

Agree. I'm in primary care and have to deal (unsuccessfully, usually) with prior authorization and medical necessity. _why_ BCBS, Aetna, etc. would push back against these prescriptions for long-time obese patients is truly beyond my understanding.

I mean, would BCBS rather pay for the looming type 2 diabetes that's right around the corner, guaranteed? With its attendant chronic kidney disease, glaucoma and wounds? Or how about the double knee replacements that are likely to come? Maybe Aetna and Cigna just really enjoy writing the checks for all the cancer treatments made necessary by obesity (colon, most breast, uterine, pancreatic).

It's really, really easy and straightforward to submit documentation that Jane Doe is obese and has one related chronic disease (even simple osteoarthritis). But the insurers fight even that! A BMI of 35 is obese, full stop. Yet coverage is routinely denied on the first submission and sometimes on subsequent attempts.

They're shooting themselves in the feet, and I feel like there's a reason hiding in plain sight but I can't identify it.

It’s probably more profitable to have people stay obese because they die sooner.