Will Ozempic and other drugs like it eliminate obesity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Imagine if we had primarily actual food, instead of all the toxic, addictive pesticide and chemical-laden processed garbage to eat. It’s hardly food anymore.

Except we do have a lot of “real” food. But many many people choose not to buy it and consume it as their primary foods. If you want to eat garbage until you’re obese, then take a shot for the rest of your life- that’s your choice too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, a lot of people *don’t* understand the calories in foods and how that relates to their own energy needs. I’m not talking about posters on this thread, just the general population. And then there are people that do understand, but have excessive hunger or other reasons for overeating.

I don’t disagree that a lot of people don’t have a good grasp, but I don’t think it’s relevant to our current obesity situation. As a population we understand our energy needs better than ever before in human history and yet we are the fattest we’ve ever been. Most people understood nothing about calories in foods and their energy needs even 50 years ago, and they still were much less fat. The average person knew much much less about calories and energy expenditure and didn’t have the luxury of the information at their fingertips the way we do. People, for the most part, ate according to their hunger and that was enough for 90% of people’s weight to remain relatively stable for their whole life. Why they were able to do that and the people of today are not is something we don’t fully understand.

I think this is a good question. On the one hand, you could say people before had more wholesome, less processed food, almost all cooked at home. Obviously the food scene has changed nowadays, people are busier and more stressed, more dual working parents, less home cooking, etc. However, was the food they ate back then really any healthier? I grew up in the 70s-80s on white bread sandwiches, hot dogs, spaghettios, kraft mac n cheese, lucky charms, etc. There was less variety, no fancy salads at restaurants, no healthy ethnic cuisines, no air fryers, no berries at the store in winter, etc. Nowadays, there are so many options to eat better. People have more choices than ever before. But maybe too much choice is overwhelming and there are so many fad diets and mixed messaging, the end result is people instinctually eat what tastes good and is easy. Which is often unhealthy junk food, fast food, etc. It's possible to eat much better these days, but you have to make more effort to choose the right things.

Food was so much less industrialized fifty years ago and the soil was so much less depleted. Just on soil depletion alone, food is far less nutritious than it was decades ago. The green revolution can grow calories, but they become less healthy as time goes on. This isn’t junk science, this is fact. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

Nutrient deprived bodies are starved bodies.

^Exactly. Food science/ gardening /cooking should be required in school, along with finance and parenting skills (child development).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at the person who doesn’t want to believe all of Hollywood doesn’t have regular and repeated cosmetic and other surgeries, including WLS. That’s pretty funny. Sweet summer child.

Please stop trying to diminish the accomplishments of others. Many people, not just actors, take pride in their physique that was obtained via hard work and disciple. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that others can't.

I don’t need to lose weight.

You are delusional, though. Do you truly believe statements put out by publicists in People and carefully crafted to build an image are factual? Do you believe everything Hollywood tells you without question? I’m honestly kind of intrigued by you, though I guess you are not that uncommon in lacking critical thinking skills. It’s fascinating to watch someone who just swallows everything they are told by Hollywood hook, line, and sinker.

Nearly 30 years ago I gave birth to my first child the same week that Madonna gave birth to hers. She post for pictures six weeks later with a banging hot body. And I remember my husband asking me why I didn’t look like Madonna six weeks after giving birth. Was it simply that I was less disciplined or was it maybe that she had a personal chef and a personal trainer and a babysitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at the person who doesn’t want to believe all of Hollywood doesn’t have regular and repeated cosmetic and other surgeries, including WLS. That’s pretty funny. Sweet summer child.

Please stop trying to diminish the accomplishments of others. Many people, not just actors, take pride in their physique that was obtained via hard work and disciple. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that others can't.

I don’t need to lose weight.

You are delusional, though. Do you truly believe statements put out by publicists in People and carefully crafted to build an image are factual? Do you believe everything Hollywood tells you without question? I’m honestly kind of intrigued by you, though I guess you are not that uncommon in lacking critical thinking skills. It’s fascinating to watch someone who just swallows everything they are told by Hollywood hook, line, and sinker.

Nearly 30 years ago I gave birth to my first child the same week that Madonna gave birth to hers. She post for pictures six weeks later with a banging hot body. And I remember my husband asking me why I didn’t look like Madonna six weeks after giving birth. Was it simply that I was less disciplined or was it maybe that she had a personal chef and a personal trainer and a babysitter

You likely didn’t have Madonna’s body and fitness pre baby, which has a whole lot to do with recovery.

[Anonymous]

What happens when you lose all the weight? Does the drug just keep making you not hungry and you become emaciated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens when you lose all the weight? Does the drug just keep making you not hungry and you become emaciated?

No, it doesn’t make you lose weight indefinitely unless you keep increasing the dose. At the current limits people can expect to lose 15% to 25% of their body weight. But there are studies in progress to increase the highest approved dose—I believe up to 7 or so mg whereas right now it’s at 2.4mg.

[Anonymous]

Not eliminate, no. But it will help a LOT of people get down to a healthier weight and live a longer and more mobile life, and that is amazing.

I have no doubt that the class of drugs will eventually become advanced enough to essentially eliminate it. We’re not there yet though.

[Anonymous]

No, not as long as banana pudding and bread exist. Get real!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, a lot of people *don’t* understand the calories in foods and how that relates to their own energy needs. I’m not talking about posters on this thread, just the general population. And then there are people that do understand, but have excessive hunger or other reasons for overeating.

I don’t disagree that a lot of people don’t have a good grasp, but I don’t think it’s relevant to our current obesity situation. As a population we understand our energy needs better than ever before in human history and yet we are the fattest we’ve ever been. Most people understood nothing about calories in foods and their energy needs even 50 years ago, and they still were much less fat. The average person knew much much less about calories and energy expenditure and didn’t have the luxury of the information at their fingertips the way we do. People, for the most part, ate according to their hunger and that was enough for 90% of people’s weight to remain relatively stable for their whole life. Why they were able to do that and the people of today are not is something we don’t fully understand.

I think this is a good question. On the one hand, you could say people before had more wholesome, less processed food, almost all cooked at home. Obviously the food scene has changed nowadays, people are busier and more stressed, more dual working parents, less home cooking, etc. However, was the food they ate back then really any healthier? I grew up in the 70s-80s on white bread sandwiches, hot dogs, spaghettios, kraft mac n cheese, lucky charms, etc. There was less variety, no fancy salads at restaurants, no healthy ethnic cuisines, no air fryers, no berries at the store in winter, etc. Nowadays, there are so many options to eat better. People have more choices than ever before. But maybe too much choice is overwhelming and there are so many fad diets and mixed messaging, the end result is people instinctually eat what tastes good and is easy. Which is often unhealthy junk food, fast food, etc. It's possible to eat much better these days, but you have to make more effort to choose the right things.

Food was so much less industrialized fifty years ago and the soil was so much less depleted. Just on soil depletion alone, food is far less nutritious than it was decades ago. The green revolution can grow calories, but they become less healthy as time goes on. This isn’t junk science, this is fact. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

Nutrient deprived bodies are starved bodies.

^Exactly. Food science/ gardening /cooking should be required in school, along with finance and parenting skills (child development).

Though you agreed with me, you missed my point. Most of us just buy healthy food assuming it’s as healthy as it ever was and that’s not true anymore. Due to soil depletion and modern industrial farming, let’s say we have a steak, some broccoli and a grain pilaf. It will not be as nutritious as it would have been 50 years ago. That can’t be solved with gardening and cooking and parenting classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, a lot of people *don’t* understand the calories in foods and how that relates to their own energy needs. I’m not talking about posters on this thread, just the general population. And then there are people that do understand, but have excessive hunger or other reasons for overeating.

I don’t disagree that a lot of people don’t have a good grasp, but I don’t think it’s relevant to our current obesity situation. As a population we understand our energy needs better than ever before in human history and yet we are the fattest we’ve ever been. Most people understood nothing about calories in foods and their energy needs even 50 years ago, and they still were much less fat. The average person knew much much less about calories and energy expenditure and didn’t have the luxury of the information at their fingertips the way we do. People, for the most part, ate according to their hunger and that was enough for 90% of people’s weight to remain relatively stable for their whole life. Why they were able to do that and the people of today are not is something we don’t fully understand.

I think this is a good question. On the one hand, you could say people before had more wholesome, less processed food, almost all cooked at home. Obviously the food scene has changed nowadays, people are busier and more stressed, more dual working parents, less home cooking, etc. However, was the food they ate back then really any healthier? I grew up in the 70s-80s on white bread sandwiches, hot dogs, spaghettios, kraft mac n cheese, lucky charms, etc. There was less variety, no fancy salads at restaurants, no healthy ethnic cuisines, no air fryers, no berries at the store in winter, etc. Nowadays, there are so many options to eat better. People have more choices than ever before. But maybe too much choice is overwhelming and there are so many fad diets and mixed messaging, the end result is people instinctually eat what tastes good and is easy. Which is often unhealthy junk food, fast food, etc. It's possible to eat much better these days, but you have to make more effort to choose the right things.

Food was so much less industrialized fifty years ago and the soil was so much less depleted. Just on soil depletion alone, food is far less nutritious than it was decades ago. The green revolution can grow calories, but they become less healthy as time goes on. This isn’t junk science, this is fact. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

Nutrient deprived bodies are starved bodies.

^Exactly. Food science/ gardening /cooking should be required in school, along with finance and parenting skills (child development).

Though you agreed with me, you missed my point. Most of us just buy healthy food assuming it’s as healthy as it ever was and that’s not true anymore. Due to soil depletion and modern industrial farming, let’s say we have a steak, some broccoli and a grain pilaf. It will not be as nutritious as it would have been 50 years ago. That can’t be solved with gardening and cooking and parenting classes.

The big issue is that people are choosing to eat slop from McDonalds instead of reasonably sized portions of unprocessed vegetables and lean meat. This other stuff is just splitting hairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, a lot of people *don’t* understand the calories in foods and how that relates to their own energy needs. I’m not talking about posters on this thread, just the general population. And then there are people that do understand, but have excessive hunger or other reasons for overeating.

I don’t disagree that a lot of people don’t have a good grasp, but I don’t think it’s relevant to our current obesity situation. As a population we understand our energy needs better than ever before in human history and yet we are the fattest we’ve ever been. Most people understood nothing about calories in foods and their energy needs even 50 years ago, and they still were much less fat. The average person knew much much less about calories and energy expenditure and didn’t have the luxury of the information at their fingertips the way we do. People, for the most part, ate according to their hunger and that was enough for 90% of people’s weight to remain relatively stable for their whole life. Why they were able to do that and the people of today are not is something we don’t fully understand.

I think this is a good question. On the one hand, you could say people before had more wholesome, less processed food, almost all cooked at home. Obviously the food scene has changed nowadays, people are busier and more stressed, more dual working parents, less home cooking, etc. However, was the food they ate back then really any healthier? I grew up in the 70s-80s on white bread sandwiches, hot dogs, spaghettios, kraft mac n cheese, lucky charms, etc. There was less variety, no fancy salads at restaurants, no healthy ethnic cuisines, no air fryers, no berries at the store in winter, etc. Nowadays, there are so many options to eat better. People have more choices than ever before. But maybe too much choice is overwhelming and there are so many fad diets and mixed messaging, the end result is people instinctually eat what tastes good and is easy. Which is often unhealthy junk food, fast food, etc. It's possible to eat much better these days, but you have to make more effort to choose the right things.

Food was so much less industrialized fifty years ago and the soil was so much less depleted. Just on soil depletion alone, food is far less nutritious than it was decades ago. The green revolution can grow calories, but they become less healthy as time goes on. This isn’t junk science, this is fact. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

Nutrient deprived bodies are starved bodies.

^Exactly. Food science/ gardening /cooking should be required in school, along with finance and parenting skills (child development).

Though you agreed with me, you missed my point. Most of us just buy healthy food assuming it’s as healthy as it ever was and that’s not true anymore. Due to soil depletion and modern industrial farming, let’s say we have a steak, some broccoli and a grain pilaf. It will not be as nutritious as it would have been 50 years ago. That can’t be solved with gardening and cooking and parenting classes.

The big issue is that people are choosing to eat slop from McDonalds instead of reasonably sized portions of unprocessed vegetables and lean meat. This other stuff is just splitting hairs.

For real. People are getting fat bc their broccoli was grown in depleted soil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are these threads in "diet and exercise" when they have nothing to do with either? Move it to health, or maybe beauty.

Or drug addiction and big pharma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens when you lose all the weight? Does the drug just keep making you not hungry and you become emaciated?

No, it doesn’t make you lose weight indefinitely unless you keep increasing the dose. At the current limits people can expect to lose 15% to 25% of their body weight. But there are studies in progress to increase the highest approved dose—I believe up to 7 or so mg whereas right now it’s at 2.4mg.

Is it that the body adjusts and the drug doesn’t have the same effect? In that case, wouldn’t one eventually gain the 15-20% back even when on the maximum dose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens when you lose all the weight? Does the drug just keep making you not hungry and you become emaciated?

No, it doesn’t make you lose weight indefinitely unless you keep increasing the dose. At the current limits people can expect to lose 15% to 25% of their body weight. But there are studies in progress to increase the highest approved dose—I believe up to 7 or so mg whereas right now it’s at 2.4mg.

Is it that the body adjusts and the drug doesn’t have the same effect? In that case, wouldn’t one eventually gain the 15-20% back even when on the maximum dose?

It’s definitely possible. Not enough data so far.

[Anonymous]

Ok. So I am in my 3rd month of mounjaro, the latest and greatest shot. I was prediabetic when I started, sleep apnea too. Can’t move at 270 pounds and 5’7. 35 pounds later things are good.

How did I gain so much weight? I slowly gained it over the years, eating more and more. Fad diets that allowed me to lose some weight, but wrecked my metabolism in doing so, and made me feel so deprived I eventually gained it all back and more.

I finally realized I need to make a real change. The drug helps me control my appetite. So what am I doing, eating well nourishing Whole Foods. Keeping my calories under 1300-1400. I am being realistic in what I write in my journal. I no longer sneak food at home. I don’t go on a daily errand so I can load up at Pizza Hut at target, or McDonald’s, or other fast food. I ate myself into 270 pounds. I know I did. I just didn’t have the willpower to make a long term change.

I plan to take this drug at least a year, maybe two. And in that time eat the way a person at a healthy weight would eat. I can’t imagine once I am off the drugs that my weight will shoot back up to 270. Not if I continue a lower calorie but not starvation diet and exercise. I am in this for the long haul to change my relationship with food.