Ozempic/Semaglutide results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do not. That is my point. In the US, we are very, very good at keeping unhealthy people alive now with repeated expensive hospitalizations and interventions like dialysis, interventional cardiology & radiology, $400,000 / yr chemo, kidney transplant, surgery upon surgery for things like diverticulitis, colon resection, amputations, etc. They're shitty years, but they're years on Earth and the insurers are paying so much to patch up these 50-75 yr old obese people and keep 'em going. Well eventually Medicare takes over but you're mistaken if you think they all keel over before 65. Maybe in 1972 - not anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do not. That is my point. In the US, we are very, very good at keeping unhealthy people alive now with repeated expensive hospitalizations and interventions like dialysis, interventional cardiology & radiology, $400,000 / yr chemo, kidney transplant, surgery upon surgery for things like diverticulitis, colon resection, amputations, etc. They're shitty years, but they're years on Earth and the insurers are paying so much to patch up these 50-75 yr old obese people and keep 'em going. Well eventually Medicare takes over but you're mistaken if you think they all keel over before 65. Maybe in 1972 - not anymore.

I understand what you said. Just because you work in primary care doesn’t mean that you’re privy to what goes into insurance assessment and all that. We’re both just speculating here. Everybody needs a ton of expensive care and intervention when they get old whether they’re fat or not. My own normal weight father has had two shoulder replacements and is currently on a medication that costs $12k a month that his insurance will be paying for the rest of his life. I have no doubt that overweight people are more costly in the latter years of their life but if those latter years are shorter it might still be cheaper. It is definitely possible that it is actually cheaper in the end to not treat obesity and that would explain why the insurances company are digging their heels in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do not. That is my point. In the US, we are very, very good at keeping unhealthy people alive now with repeated expensive hospitalizations and interventions like dialysis, interventional cardiology & radiology, $400,000 / yr chemo, kidney transplant, surgery upon surgery for things like diverticulitis, colon resection, amputations, etc. They're shitty years, but they're years on Earth and the insurers are paying so much to patch up these 50-75 yr old obese people and keep 'em going. Well eventually Medicare takes over but you're mistaken if you think they all keel over before 65. Maybe in 1972 - not anymore.

I understand what you said. Just because you work in primary care doesn’t mean that you’re privy to what goes into insurance assessment and all that. We’re both just speculating here. Everybody needs a ton of expensive care and intervention when they get old whether they’re fat or not. My own normal weight father has had two shoulder replacements and is currently on a medication that costs $12k a month that his insurance will be paying for the rest of his life. I have no doubt that overweight people are more costly in the latter years of their life but if those latter years are shorter it might still be cheaper. It is definitely possible that it is actually cheaper in the end to not treat obesity and that would explain why the insurances company are digging their heels in.

As I said, I am not privy into the current calculations made by insurers and it's very confusing as a provider. I've also worked inpatient and these days, outside the oncology and trauma floors, the overwhelming % of the admitted patients are obese. Wasn't always the case but it is now and I would have assumed that the big insurers would approach these new drugs they way they do statins, anti-hypertensives and things like metformin -- all designed to keep their clients from revolving door admissions

[Anonymous]

For insurers the calculation isn’t that keeping someone obese will make them die sooner and therefore be cheaper, but odds are that a person on your plan today won’t be on your plan 5 years from now. So paying for something now that will lower costs in 5 years isn’t in the insurers best interests. You incur the cost of the drug, but don’t expect to benefit from the better health down the road.

[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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

[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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

No and no. People do not stay on BP medication forever. Weight loss can help people get off high blood pressure medication.
You don’t need to stay on oh, Ozempic forever as well. Once you have reached goal, you can titrate off it.

[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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

Not at all for about 100 reasons. Here are just a few:
- there is no generic competition for these drugs and there is a shortage for those that actually need them. No so for nearly all but the most exotic hypertension medications
- most standard hypertension drugs have a very long track record
- most hypertension drugs work in the background and do nothing to alter behavior
- people beat hypertension all the time through lifestyle changes
- people that refuse to do the above might be on them forever. Some people have a genetic predisposition to hypertension despite being normal weight and having good life style hygiene. So they might be on them forever.

These are not remotely the same thing.

When you titrate off a hypertension drug if the lifestyle changes made support the blood pressure staying low it stays low. You come off one of these drugs that mask true behavior, definitely not going to be the same experience.

[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:

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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

Not at all for about 100 reasons. Here are just a few:
- there is no generic competition for these drugs and there is a shortage for those that actually need them. No so for nearly all but the most exotic hypertension medications
- most standard hypertension drugs have a very long track record
- most hypertension drugs work in the background and do nothing to alter behavior
- people beat hypertension all the time through lifestyle changes
- people that refuse to do the above might be on them forever. Some people have a genetic predisposition to hypertension despite being normal weight and having good life style hygiene. So they might be on them forever.

These are not remotely the same thing.

When you titrate off a hypertension drug if the lifestyle changes made support the blood pressure staying low it stays low. You come off one of these drugs that mask true behavior, definitely not going to be the same experience.

Sounds like you’re just rooting for people to fail.

[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:

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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

Not at all for about 100 reasons. Here are just a few:
- there is no generic competition for these drugs and there is a shortage for those that actually need them. No so for nearly all but the most exotic hypertension medications
- most standard hypertension drugs have a very long track record
- most hypertension drugs work in the background and do nothing to alter behavior
- people beat hypertension all the time through lifestyle changes
- people that refuse to do the above might be on them forever. Some people have a genetic predisposition to hypertension despite being normal weight and having good life style hygiene. So they might be on them forever.

These are not remotely the same thing.

When you titrate off a hypertension drug if the lifestyle changes made support the blood pressure staying low it stays low. You come off one of these drugs that mask true behavior, definitely not going to be the same experience.

Sounds like you’re just rooting for people to fail.

Not at all. I do think it’s exceptionally irresponsible and privileged to be soaking up supply of these drugs to lose weight if you aren’t health threatening obese and even still have if that person has not actually (as in actually) tried life style changes. If simply overweight and going down this road without current associated health problems, bad plan.

People can think what they want, but hitching your wagon to this without a long track record isn’t a great plan. And it isn’t cheap either.

[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:

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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

No and no. People do not stay on BP medication forever. Weight loss can help people get off high blood pressure medication.
You don’t need to stay on oh, Ozempic forever as well. Once you have reached goal, you can titrate off it.

Nope. You don’t know anything about this drug. You don’t have to titrate off, first of all, because it slowly leaves the system over a matter of weeks.

And yes, evidence shows that people who get off of it gain the weight back. So you don’t have to stay on it of course but if you want to maintain your weight loss you do.

[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.

I thought a BMI over 30 was obese. Over 35 is morbidly obese?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought a BMI over 30 was obese. Over 35 is morbidly obese?

Here is what the CDC says:
Adult Body Mass Index
BMI is a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. A high BMI can indicate high body fatness.

To calculate BMI, see the Adult BMI Calculator or determine BMI by finding your height and weight in this BMI Index Chart.

If your BMI is less than 18.5, it falls within the underweight range.
If your BMI is 18.5 to <25, it falls within the healthy weight range.
If your BMI is 25.0 to <30, it falls within the overweight range.
If your BMI is 30.0 or higher, it falls within the obesity range.
Obesity is frequently subdivided into categories:

Class 1: BMI of 30 to < 35
Class 2: BMI of 35 to < 40
Class 3: BMI of 40 or higher. Class 3 obesity is sometimes categorized as “severe” obesity.

[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:

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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

No and no. People do not stay on BP medication forever. Weight loss can help people get off high blood pressure medication.
You don’t need to stay on oh, Ozempic forever as well. Once you have reached goal, you can titrate off it.

Nope. You don’t know anything about this drug. You don’t have to titrate off, first of all, because it slowly leaves the system over a matter of weeks.

And yes, evidence shows that people who get off of it gain the weight back. So you don’t have to stay on it of course but if you want to maintain your weight loss you do.

Your patience in responding to that exceptionally ignorant poster is to be commended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:49F, 208lbs. started with 0.25 two days ago. anyone else?

OP how is your progress now that you're almost 8 weeks in?

[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:

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?

People stay on blood pressure medication forever. This is like that.

No and no. People do not stay on BP medication forever. Weight loss can help people get off high blood pressure medication.
You don’t need to stay on oh, Ozempic forever as well. Once you have reached goal, you can titrate off it.

DP. I don’t think we have any idea if that’s true or not.