Weight loss drugs—is it just eating less calories??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't get the vitriol here. Lots of yelling that fat people shouldn't be fat. They now have a safe and reliable tool that makes that more achievable than ever, but it's not enough. Because willpower or something.

The meds are a godsend just as statins, estrogen, etc are.

I don’t see any yelling. I do see people with weight issues figuring out how to be a victim even with a novel pharmaceutical at their disposal. Sort of like they want to be patted on the back for doing 120 minutes of strength training a week like it’s some sort of enormous time suck and burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's easy to lose weight without all the food noise. these meds seem to tamp down the food noise.

Are you eating rice crispies all the time or something. What the heck is “food noise”?

It's that their brain constantly thinks about eating and food. Like that Seinfeld episode where George wanted to eat a pastrami sandwich while having sex. 95% of DCUM is like that, except by middle age, the pastrami becomes even more important than the sex.

[Anonymous]

If you don't have food noise and if you just naturally eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full, you will never get it.

Some people are just not wired that way. I am 52 and have struggled with eating and my weight my whole life. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when snacks weren't given out all of the time and we didn't have junk food in the house, yet I have always had a broken relationship with food. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

Actually CICO has be PROVEN in every inpatient weight loss study.

Also, when you look at photos of famine or concentration camps there are not fat people who have bodies resistant to weight loss. This is just a hard fact for fat people to believe, because they want to have something else to blame. That said, hormones control hunger. So if you have more of the type that make you hungry (or not full) you will eat more - more calories - and be fatter.

No one is saying calories don’t matter. NO ONE.

What’s being said is that science is discovering that it is more complicated than that, and not every human engine works the same. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to accept and I DEFINITELY DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone would be so against it. What is your purpose in fighting things that are backed by science, proved by evidence, and affirmed by the millions they are helping? What is your problem?

And most importantly, what makes you think that using F$%KING CONCENTRATION CAMP VICTIMS as an example does any good? The greatest tragedy of the 20th century is your diet plan? That is disgusting, and you should apologize for that immediately.

It's because framing body size as something that is 1) simple and 2) tied to personal willpower, makes the people who are naturally more inclined to thinness feel morally superior. It's very, very hard to raise a person their entire life being praised for their self control and moral superiority and then try to tell them "oh, nevermind, it turns out that without your input your body produces less leptin than other people's bodies so you basically lucked out". They will fight to the death to hang on to the sense of superiority that being thinner than *those* people gives them, because they've tied it to their sense of self.

This is the same reason they will brag about being "health conscious" for wearing a size 4-8 even though they work out maybe once a week, but then heap scorn on a triathlete that wears a size 14. It's all about self-perception, and in particular the right to think of themselves as better than the out group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't get the vitriol here. Lots of yelling that fat people shouldn't be fat. They now have a safe and reliable tool that makes that more achievable than ever, but it's not enough. Because willpower or something.

The meds are a godsend just as statins, estrogen, etc are.

I don’t see any yelling. I do see people with weight issues figuring out how to be a victim even with a novel pharmaceutical at their disposal. Sort of like they want to be patted on the back for doing 120 minutes of strength training a week like it’s some sort of enormous time suck and burden.

Call it what you want. Posters on this board have been hypercritical and dismissive of posters' experiences with these drugs from the beginning. Look at your snark. I'm not sure if you think you're being helpful or if you're just comfortable being mean.

[Anonymous]

I have a hard time believing OP is on a medication that can’t even spell close to correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

[Anonymous]

"charge more for breeds" (typo)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time believing OP is on a medication that can’t even spell close to correctly.

Since you're nitpicking OP's spelling, are you saying that the medication appears to be a poor speller? Did the FDA evaluate the medications' spelling ability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It slows down the absorption of food and causes the pancrease to release more insulin.

Higher insulin promotes burning fat.

Without the drugs you burn carbohydrates which decreases energy and you move less. Burning fat makes you lighter and have more energy so you move more.

Also youre less hungry so for people who have issues eating too much it helps with that.

+1000
NP here. Everyone just ignored this thoughtful and correct post.

I’m 56, started semiglutide 6 mos ago at 240 lbs and have lost 20 lbs. I’ve never been a junk food eater (vacations and eating out were usually my 5 lbs per year weight gain) and have had a fresh food high protein, low carb, high veggies diet for 25 years. But with menopause 5 years ago, I started slowly gaining weight on a 1400-1500 calorie diet, that used to allow me to lose weight. If I dropped lower than 1400 calories, my system started screaming that I’m definitely hungry, about to starve, and might pass out from low blood sugar. I did not know what food noise was until semiglutide turned it off. But I’m not eating less that I was (I actually have to pay attention and make sure I do eat enough). Because the other thing that is happening it exactly what this poster described. Food absorption is different and my insulin response is different. (And my cholesterol levels have dropped with the same diet as lest year.)

So much of this thread is arguing about CICO. What I see missing often is the nuance that calories in is not just the caloric number (and type) of the food that enters the mouth, but how the body accesses those calories. And calories out is not just exercise, it’s both the base metabolic rate and how a particular body accesses energy during exercise.

A little acceptance of nuance would go a long way in this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time believing OP is on a medication that can’t even spell close to correctly.

Since you're nitpicking OP's spelling, are you saying that the medication appears to be a poor speller? Did the FDA evaluate the medications' spelling ability?

Ya got me girl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

Some sheep breeds put on more weight than others even when you feed the same amount and type of food. It's isn't just the feed.

Do you get that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it is not just the calories. I lost 11 lbs in the first week and it didn't really impact my appetite until the third shot. It basically flushed all the inflammation out of my system immediately. The hormonal component is not well understood and so people who prefer simple answers reject it and insist CACO, which has been debunked in every inpatient weight loss study ever performed on obese patients, is the only answer.

One of the things that puzzles me about a rigid CACO take on it is that we know this isn't how it works in at least many other mammals. Talk to anyone who raises sheep, or cows, or other animals that they need to put weight on for slaughter - certain breeds just put on more weight, and they are generally worth more to breed.

I just don't get that. People who are very driven by the bottom-line will shell out more money because they know they will recoup it by getting more pound for, well, pound.

Please explain to me how this disproves CICO?
No one is saying that ALL people have the same calorie needs or hormonal make up. Some people naturally have more muscle and put on muscle more easily. Some people naturally have higher or lower metabolisms. Some people are naturally more or less hungry than others. Some people can eat half their plate of food and feel fully satisfied while others clean the entire plate. We all know people who eat a few bite of dessert and say, "this is do rich, I am stuffed" where others, myself included, could eat the entire piece of cake and go back for more. No one disputes this, but just because I gain weight when eating 1600 cal/day and someone else can eat 3500 cal/day and not gain weight doesn't disprove CICO. Everyone will have a threshold where they will gain or lose weight. It just varies from person to person. No one left a concentration camp overweight.

there was a podcast I listened to once with a guy who was naturally an ectomorph, tall and thin. he wanted to put on muscle and successfully put on something like 50 lbs of muscle, but in order for him to do so he had to lift weights and force himself to eat more and eat past where he felt full and wanted to stop eating. Why- because he needed to eat in a calorie surplus to gain weight.

and this whole "inflammation" as the new catchphrase is just silly. most people lose water weight when they star eating better because carbs and salt cause you you to retain a lot more water. not because their bodies are "inflamed" inflammation is when you have an infection.

Talk to a rancher. For the same amount of feed, some breeds will put on more weight in the months than others. I'm taking about penned sheep, eg in parts of the southwest where there is not much grazing available. It's called "confinement feeding," and suppliers charge more for beds that put on more weight with the same amount of food (obviously, this is for those planned to slaughter -- Merino wool sheep are also more expensive for other reasons)..

I'm not sure what about this is confusing to you though.

I still don't get what you are not understanding.

I am not arguing that some breeds or people don't put more weight on eating the same food and calories as other. I fully understand that for all sorts of reasons people burn or store energy (calories as calories are just units of energy) differently. As unfair as it is, it means some people need more or less calories to gain or lose weight energy balance is still the same. But he way energy balance works is still the same.

If your car engine is running as you slowly add gas that gas will get burned. If you turn off the engine and stop adding gas the gas level stays the same. If you turn off the engine but still keep adding gas then you need a bigger tank to store that gas you are no longer using. The gas a Fiat needs vs the gas a semi need is different.


back to your sheep breeds- if you fed the big breeds sheep less food than they need to fatten up they wouldn't fatten up and may even lose weight.

Some sheep breeds put on more weight than others even when you feed the same amount and type of food. It's isn't just the feed.

Do you get that?

You really are dense.

I get that. Not all breeds have the same calorie requirements, makes total sense. Not all people have the same calorie requirement, even people who weigh the same.
If the big breeds were fed less then guess what they would eventually stop gaining weight. If you stopped feeding them they would also stop gaining weight.
just because A and B have different energy requirement/metabolism doesn't make CICO false.

[Anonymous]

PS: Also, these are sheep in commercial pens. It's not like some of them are working out and some are not. Barring infection, there is not a lot of variation in metabolic demand. None of the sheep are being themselves apart by going in morning his or getting jacked. They are standing around, or lying down.