The End of Obesity?
The advent of effective new weight loss drugs offers hope for millions of overweight people.

Americans are fat and getting fatter. But now pharmaceutical companies are rolling out new prescription drugs that really do help people lose and keep off significant amounts of body fat. Celebrities like Elon Musk have touted their benefits. The side effects appear minimal, but the weight stays off only as long as users keep injecting the drugs weekly.
The share of overweight Americans has been ticking relentlessly upward. In 1960, 31.5 percent of adults in the U.S. were overweight (13.4 percent of whom were obese); today, 73 percent are overweight (42.4 percent of whom are obese.). Overweight and obese are defined as having a body mass index over 25 and 30, respectively. A body mass index measures the ratio of a person's height to his weight to roughly estimate his amount of body fat.

The increase in weight has been accompanied by a rise in the number of Americans diagnosed with diabetes, which rose from 5.5 million in 1980 to 28.7 million in 2020. Around 96 million Americans have prediabetes, a condition characterized by slightly elevated blood glucose levels, regarded as indicative that a person is at risk of progressing to Type 2 diabetes.
A 2017 study estimated that "care for people with diagnosed diabetes accounts for 1 in 4 health care dollars in the U.S." That amounted to $327 billion, including $237 billion in direct medical costs and $90 billion in reduced productivity.
And not just Americans are getting fatter. Worldwide, 39 percent of adults are overweight (of whom 13 percent are obese). Earlier this month, the World Obesity Federation (WOF) projected that if current trends continue, more than half world's population, around 4 billion people, will be overweight by 2035. Two billion of them will be obese.
Various epidemiological studies find that obesity correlates with shorter life expectancy and worse overall health. The WOF study estimates that the economic impact of overweight and obesity will reach $4.32 trillion annually by 2035, about 3 percent of global GDP.
Now, several new drugs initially developed to treat diabetes also help users lose body fat. The New York Times called them "a game changer." The Washington Post hailed the new weight loss drugs as "a milestone for the obese," while worrying that the poor will not have access to them. "Weight-loss drugs will be tech breakthrough with most direct effect on people," asserted an op-ed in The San Diego Union-Tribune. The Economist declared, "New drugs could spell an end to the world's obesity epidemic."
The drugs, semaglutide and tirzepatide, are better known by the brand names they're marketed under: Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro. Both drugs work by targeting specific hormones to suppress appetite, reduce food cravings, and improve control over eating with the result that users lose body fat. (Basically, the antithesis of the black market "fatkins" treatments that supercharged metabolism to burn off fat in Cory Doctorow's 2009 novel Makers.)
So how much body fat do users tend to lose? One study reported that users of the Wegovy semaglutide and the Mounjaro tirzepatide lost, on average, about 12.4 and 17.8 percent of their starting weights, respectively. Depending on which drug he takes, a male standing five feet 10 inches and weighing 240 pounds would likely lose about 30 or 45 pounds. This would lower his BMI from obese to overweight and lower his average blood sugar levels (A1C) while improving various measures of cardiovascular health.
Chronic illnesses are generally thought of as long-lasting conditions that frequently can be controlled but not cured. Many medical practitioners and researchers regard obesity as just such a chronic illness. Consequently, as a chronic condition, obesity needs chronic treatment. When users stop taking the new weight loss drugs, their feelings of hunger return and they rebound, regaining about two-thirds of the weight that they had lost, according to a 2022 study.
The current average price for the new weight loss injections is around $13,000 per year. Making the absurdly heroic assumption that all 88 million obese American adults were to take them, it would total around $1.1 trillion annually. For comparison, a 2018 Milken Institute report estimated the impact of excess weight on the U.S. economy at $1.7 trillion, including $481 billion in direct health care costs and $1.24 trillion in lost productivity. Already spending a fiscally unsustainable $1.7 trillion annually on health care, the federal government should not and will not be funding these weight loss treatments. The best way to make these medications more widely available is through drug company competition.
The cost of Ozempic when prescribed to treat Type 2 diabetes is covered by most private medical insurance plans and Medicare. However, people seeking to use the medicines for weight loss generally have to pay out of pocket. The good news is that other pharmaceutical manufacturers are already working on rival products, including Amgen, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hopefully these new drugs are based on the 100% safe and effective with no downsides Mnra technology.
Afraid not. Those drugs actually work.
But they work at a huge price to pay- your health. They’re linked to thyroid cancer and pancreatitis. My advice is take them for 6 months or less to minimize long term complications
Not a huge price. Their link to thyroid cancer and pancreatitis at this time are unclear. One of the meds, semaglutide, has been linked to an increased risk for these conditions in rat studies. Tirzepatide has not. In the largest review to date, a meta-analysis of over 11,000 human patients shows no increased risk of either. As the drugs are around longer, more studies and longer studies may find some issues. A French observational study with 2k+ patients was just released showing those meds were associated with an increased risk, but was not designed to show if the meds themselves are what caused that increased risk. (Association vs. causality.) So for now, we know they have been a huge win for tens of thousands of people and given the beneficial impact on weight, diabetes, alcoholism and their downstream consequences -- it's pretty clear that their benefits markedly outweigh their risks, at this point. We'll see how it plays out in the long run.
I wonder if one can sue for damage due to side effects, or did that completely go out the window since the Chinese Virus jabs?
The democrats should be cleansed so we can give the federal government a hard reset to factory conditions. The current data build is complete,Evelyn corrupted and barely functions.
Here's a quarter, buy yourself a clue. Vaccine manufacturers have had broad protections against lawsuits for decades. Back in the 70's and 80's, there was a panic over the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine. There were several lawsuits against drug companies. Despite a lack of evidence, juries often found sick kids more sympathetic than drug makers, and handed out large settlements. Contrary to anti-capitalist fantasies, vaccines aren't hugely profitable, so what rationally managed company is going to make a product that offers more risk than reward? With declining competition and sky-high insurance costs, prices for the vaccine were also through the roof. By 1986, only one company was still making the vaccine, and they were threatening to stop. Since having no vaccine available was clearly not in the public interest, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. It provided manufacturers broad protection against lawsuits in order to ensure vaccines were available and affordable. Since a small but real number of children did suffer injuries linked to vaccines, the law also set up a system to compensate their families, funded by an excise tax on vaccines. So, despite the bleating of conspiracist wingnuts, providing vaccine makers protection from liability isn't something the government pulled out of its ass for covid vaccines, but is a well-established practice dating back nearly forty years. While the covid vaccines aren't covered by that law, the government did set up a similar fund specifically for them. If you can show that you were injured by one of those vaccines you can receive compensation even if you can't sue the manufacturer. The wingnut claim that anyone harmed by these vaccines is simply left out in the cold is just more of their bullshit.
Just like any other medical treatment, vaccines are never 100% safe. The world is an imperfect place, and well, sometimes shit happens. The only sensible response is to determine the relative risks and benefits. In the case of vaccines, the benefits very clearly out-weigh the risks. Of course, this was a lot more obvious back when most people knew someone who had to use crutches or a wheelchair because polio had left them partially paralyzed, or knew a family whose child had suffered or died due to other once-common diseases. I think one reason anti-vaxx idiocy has gotten as much traction as it has is that most people in the developed world today have never lived in a world without wide spread vaccination. They've never seen kids crippled or killed by the diseases that have been nearly eradicated by vaccines. Therefore, they tend to pay more attention to the relatively tiny risks than the huge but largely invisible benefits.
Mnra technology
End gun violence by giving everybody no less than 30 shots that are 100% safe!
Or people could simply live healthy lifestyles. But of course, it's a "good thing" that Big Pharma, always keeping our interests firmly at heart, offers expensive symptom-suppressing drugs for their fun and profit,
My thoughts exactly. How about just put down the fork and increase your exercise instead of popping more pills.
Oh, you must be a youngster.
Thought and acted just like that once. Kept my weight well under control in a family with a history of being overweight. But found out the hard way that, as you get older, it isn't quite that simple.
Sure the calories in must be no greater than the calories burned equation still applies. But those calories get harder and harder to burn. You'll find out as you get older.
My anthropology professor circa 1978 was correct: the human body wasn't designed to last more than about 35 years. So, he didn't understand why people way older than that were so upset about their "health issues".
Don't worry. Be happy.
The human body wasn't designed at all, and the obesity problem is certainly one proof it wasn't "Intelligently Designed."
If everyone thought like your Anthropology Professor, there would be no man left for Anthropology to study and it sounded like he was pretty bereft of humanity himself.
As the Ugly duckling of Country Music Lyle Lovett put it:
"What would you be if you didn't try? You have to try."
I hope and trust you got your money back on your tuition for this fatalistic egghead's course.
Calories in calories out doesn’t necessarily equate. You can lose weight while using less calories than you take in through achieving ketosis.
The whole 35 year thing is a total myth. That figure is generally for life expectancy at birth. Pre-modern societies tended to have horrifically high rates of infant and childhood mortality, which really dragged down the average. But even in these societies, people who managed to survive to adulthood could reasonably expect to live 70-80 years.
This actually makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. While older people couldn’t reproduce, they could help care for children while younger adults were out hunting and gathering. They also served as a valuable repository of knowledge. Since writing didn’t exist for most of human history, oral tradition was invaluable.
Useless. Too expensive and insurance won't cover. Might as well not bring them out.
Ordinary methods are a bitch. My metabolism, from calculations, about 1700 calories a day. I can eat that moderately comfortably, but that just gets me 237 lbs for 6' tall, too much. Have exercise machine, but mostly can't whip myself to get on it as often as I should. 75 years old, tired a lot, sleep sucks a lot, etc.
4 years ago I was "in shape" and rode an exercise machine like the one I bought every day for 90 minutes a day and kept intake to about 1000 calories a day with nutrisystem. Lost 1/2 lb a day, 16 lbs over 5 weeks. But gave myself a repetitive stress injury from it so I couldn't ride my exercise machine, and the pandemic kinda finished the job with enforced, super sedentary existence sitting in house and avoiding other people, doing such strenuous stuff as (sitting) and scanning books into computer, (sitting) and scanning slides into computer, (sitting) and scanning old family photos into computer, (sitting) and scanning my (1000's of) magazines into computer, while recovering from the repetitive stress injury too. But I avoided other people and did not die of the damned virus.
So, at "out of shape" status so riding exercise machine for as much as 500 calories a day is a real problem, and 235ish, these drugs are not going to help a bit at $1100 / month.
Don't be silly. Most things are hideously expensive when they first come on the market. If they serve a useful purpose, other makers enter the market and competition drives innovation and drives down prices. The earliest cars were mostly toys for the wealthy, but how long did it take for Henry Ford to come along and introduce the Model T? Early VCRs cost thousands of dollars, but by the time they started to be replaced by DVDs, they were practically giving them away. Personal computers started out as little more than toys for determined hobbyists, then became expensive business tools. A few decades later, you can pick up a used but functional machine for a hundred bucks. Power tools once cost a fortune and required near-constant repairs and maintenance. But they also greatly increased workers' productivity, so construction companies continued to buy them. Now you can head to the local Home Depot and put yourself together a pretty decent home workshop for what a single saw or drill once cost.
I could go on with this all day, but you get the idea. What was once a luxury for the rich or an expensive tool only for professionals quickly becomes a convenience for the masses. Absent heavy-handed state meddling, I see no reason to expect these drugs not to follow a similar path. For some people their benefits already exceed their cost, and that number will rapidly increase as prices come down.
Yeah, that pretty clearly doesn't work for the large majority of people who try to lose weight. Weight loss through diet and exercise only has about a 20-30% success long-term. If "eat less, exercise more" was a pill trying to get FDA approval, they would have laughed it out of the boardroom with that kind of success rate.
Will National Health Care get funded for 87,000 BMI enforcement agents?
GOODS
Begin now earning every month an extra amount of $17k or more just by doing very simple and easy online job from home. I have received $18953 in my last month direct in my bank acc by doing this easy home base job just in my part time for 2 hrs maximum a day online. Even a child can now do this job and earns money online. Everybody can get this home job right now and start earning dollars online by follow details here..........
Click the link—————————————>>> http://WWW.Pay.JioSalary.COM
Imagine what we could achieve if we mandated them.
Your Smart Kitchen will lock up when you exceed a BMI of 30.
According to the NIH, Obesity is a Public Health Emergency.
Right along with gun violence.
To a hammer, everything is a nail.
Dude! There are still contemporary non-Internet-connected fridges! Hell, mine doesn't even have an ice-maker...And 'Aye Gawd I like it!
🙂
There's a distinct limit to just how "smart" I want my appliances to be. The only connection my toaster needs is one to the electrical outlet.
Or a 2,000 calorie diet.
Hey! My body, my choice!
That's only for aborting a
baby"clump of cells."What if the clump identifies as chubby?
I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business dec right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by
visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Which is such an ironic term, as it is applicable to all multi called life forms. Of course, it’s not surprising as leftists are retarded cunts.
Ah, if only leftists had a monopoly on that...
Typical modern solution that tries to cover up a problem instead of finding its deepest cause and healing it for real...
Imagine a world where people could visit a GP regularly and have a way to deal with and track obesity for something less than $13000 per year
It costs like $250 to go see some family practice doctor.
It costs nothing to eat less food, actually it saves you more than $250.
But obese people who try to lose and keep off fat by choosing to eat less have a failure rate of approximately 100%. We need better treatment to offer them than just telling them to eat less, if we want to reduce fat related disease.
People who get that fat are extremely stupid or weak-willed, or both. Or just insane. "It's just one soda what's the big deal".
Also it's obviously not 100%, it's just that most Americans are retarded. People can and do lose weight by changing their diets and lifestyles.
People can and do lose weight by changing their diets and lifestyles.
Rarely, and almost never is the weight loss lasting.
Stop being fat, Vernon.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
But, yeah, let's just keep yelling at people and telling them they're weak...
I can't make people smarter. All I can do is mock them and hope they improve.
if you actually wanted people to improve, you wouldn't mock them and shame them and lecture them. you'd suggest something that might actually work.
for you, the shame is the point.
Eat less. Exercise more.
Youre talking to Jeff. The fat fuck who demanded vaccinations because he was at high risk of covid death.
If you count 1% as high.
Pointless for you. Given your history here. You’re likely at least a borderline sociopath. So is Tony.
So you're going to willfully ignore the fact that your mocking makes their problem worse, not better. And yet you think that they will "improve"...
Apparently, I can't make people smarter either.
no, he doesn't think they will improve. he needs the fatties around to look down on and mock so he can feel better about his own miserable life.
No, just eat less, move more.
If that simplistic advice worked, no one would be fat.
Jeffy needs to get more activity than reaching for the remote and jacking it surgery videos of underage bottom surgeries.
Because fat acceptance movements are working so well and not exacerbating the issue?
How dare they be told the truth!! Maybe you can hold a drum circle for them with a catered buffet and that will help
People can and do gain every ounce back after they stop the "diet".
There are thousands of books written to guide people to a healthy-looking weight; perhaps you should write one.
It doesn't matter what "we" want. What matters is what each individual wants, and how much they want it.
and keep off fat
...
and almost never is the weight loss lasting
What was your stupid argument again?
Fat people are eating the wrong foods. Stop or drastically reduce consumption of refined carbs, sugar, and seed oils.
Everyone is eating the wrong foods. Industrial prepared food is deadly but that is what is most profitable, most available, and that is what is marketed.
The main reason poor people tend to be more obese is because they have far more access to that source for info/food than they do for any healthy alternative
And processed foods in general.
It costs like $250 to go see some family practice doctor.
And at least 20% less if you just need someone with letters behind their name to tell you to eat less and get up and move around more.
Doctors office visits ar e usually a waste of time. I usually get sent home after being told to do something that already didn’t work, but I need to “keep trying that”.
Fact is we eat less than our grandparents. And lecturing fat people about their failures of morals and effort doesn't work. And obesity is really only a problem since the 1980's
Fact is we eat less than our grandparents.
Except for maybe spacial volume this is factually incorrect in either the caloric or mass dimensions.
Not to mention that obviously for any accumulating system that is or can be appreciably depleted by expenditure, the latter must be considered when discussing accumulation.
Jfree and his known facts wrong again?
https://abcnews.go.com/WN/food-portion-sizes-grown-lot/story?id=129685
There's no way we eat less than our grandparents. I eat more than my younger self 30+ years ago.
I know my kids now, consume more calories than their grandparents did and are less physically active than their grandparents were at their age and constantly push back against it. As do the grandparents.
It's true. They certainly expended more energy. But what we do that our grandparents didn't do is snack/graze. That is what puts us in permanent insulin mode. Once in that mode, it is not biologically POSSIBLE to burn fat instead of carbs. So the result is that we add those extra calories (that our grandparents expended) as fat. If it's 5 lbs of fat per year that is roughly 50 extra calories ingested per day
that is roughly 50 extra calories ingested per day
Which is, definitively, not "eating less than our grandparents".
About the only way your first statement is/could be true is with respect to spacial volume.
Now, with regard to:
That is what puts us in permanent insulin mode. Once in that mode, it is not biologically POSSIBLE to burn fat instead of carbs.
This is between deceptive and incorrect. It is by no means biologically IMPOSSIBLE to burn fat instead of carbs with consistently high insulin levels, it is LESS OPTIMAL for breaking down stored fat but insulin is, in fact, required for the eventual conversion of fat into energy.
It is eating less since our grandparents expended about 100+ more calories a day than we do
It is eating less
No, it's not. Unless no word in that clause has any meaning. Eating or consuming or providing input is not expenditure. From the literal "What's the diet like, what do you or all Americans or all humans or all animals normally eat?" level down to the cellular "Has the glycolysis or lypolysis or gluconeogenesis pathway been fed/provided adequate substrates?"
Eating less = what you ingest. It has nothing at all to do with expenditure and I already said our grandparents expended more than we do.
One of the problems is that we think we can eat the same as our grandparents while burning less or changing our timing of snacks/etc.
You don’t know what you are talking about. The sole purpose of insulin is to tell cells to open themselves up to using glucose for energy. Any excess glucose or fat then will get stored as fat for energy later. There are six different hormones that can switch the body over to burning fat but they don’t work with insulin and if they do get (rarely) released at the same time that is probably a factor in creating insulin resistance (diabetes)
The sole purpose of insulin is to tell cells to open themselves up to using glucose for energy.
False. This is it's main and most direct, function but not its sole function as you yourself note with "six different hormones".
Any excess glucose or fat then will get stored as fat for energy later.
Excess of what? Glucose oxidation? Exceeding the amount of insulin? The body doesn't store *any* glucose as glycogen, just fat? Excess of glucose oxidation *and* glycogen storage? Excess at the total biological mass level or at some arbitrarily defined scale of time and amount that insulin isn't even sensitive to?
six different hormones that can switch the body over to burning fat
Again false. Until you die, your body is *always* burning fat and even then fat oxidation still occurs. Enzymes still work without hormones, the opposite it, rather definitively, not true.
they don’t work with insulin and if they do get (rarely) released at the same time
Again, false. In line with all of the above, they don't function at their primary function optimally in a, relative to normal or background *of insulin*, abundance of insulin, but they are still secreted and still function. And I note "*of insulin*" as these hormones can and do *frequently* (as in daily or more often) spike relative to their own normal concentrations in a manner only loosely associated with insulin levels. The primary actor of the six you are referring to is generally glucagon, but you can in a clinical setting, inject someone with insulin and *easily* watch their glucagon levels rise. This is especially/notably/critically true if their blood glucose is low or normal to begin with.
You're treating this as if it's a strictly binary, signal-based system all operating at approximately the same signal levels and sensitivity with no losses of signal anywhere. It's not. Not even close.
Excess = the point where glucagon (the true opposite of insulin) kicks in. Glucagon is produced when blood sugar is low (ie never at the same time as insulin) to tell the liver to produce glycogen and release glucose for those cells which require glucose.
Glucagon and insulin ARE binary. The other fat burning hormones (other than glucagon) are HGH, IGF, testosterone, adrenaline, thyroid thing. And no they don't work well at all with insulin even if they occasionally get produced at the same time
Glucagon and insulin ARE binary.
No. They may have opposing functions, but they are not binary. Again, this is an incorrect reduction of the model. You’re regarding it as a light switch rather than a more differential model like a home heating and cooling system. Glucagon and insulin are not directly regulatory of one another (or just aren’t obviously and/or known to be) just like your air conditioning doesn’t directly control your furnace and vice versa.
Even this model is a poor one because, as indicated, your cells are always burning glucose and lipids but your house, absent both AC and Heat, is largely stable and doesn’t proceed to heat up and catch fire or drop below freezing and burst the plumbing if the heating or cooling drops out for an hour or even, generally, a day. Further, your HVAC system only has to respond to one, trinary input, while glucagon and insulin each respond to several different inputs and do so differently. Even further, your house is generally concpetualized as one open system with regard to heating and cooling whereas the system for glucagon and insulin is conceptually three compartments (storage cells, blood stream, and active/consumption cells). If you really want to flesh out the HVAC model completely, you would think of both your furnace and your AC each having their own blower and each being in separate attached garages. Your furnace could heat up the house and it’s own space all it likes, but if it’s going to heat up “insulin’s garage” the other blower is going to have to kick on.
I indicated above that insulin and glucagon aren’t generally known to be directly and mutually regulatory. This is specifically because of the multi-input issue noted above. The literature investigating the link broadly connotes ‘non-carbohydrate’ and ‘carbohydrate’ meals as for carbohydrate meals, there is a distinct opposing function with considerable lag (indicating indirect regulation) but for protein and fat meals there is actually a fairly strong and positive correlation even in the presence of elevated serum glucose.
High blood sugar sensed by pancreas = Produce insulin Low blood sugar sensed by pancreas = Produce glucagon Just right blood sugar = Pancreas take a nap
This is binary. Both aren’t being produced at the same time. And in particular, insulin resistance (the disease of T2 diabetes) leads to perpetual high blood sugar so the pancreas continues to produce insulin even though the body is no longer responding well to insulin. Glucagon production simply ceases. It may well be that after a while the body no longer even recognizes body fat as a source of energy. Your experiment of injecting someone with INSULIN is irrelevant. Blood sugar is what signals the production of those hormones – not the presence of the other hormone. IDK why you’re trying to strawman something here.
And jmo – but Id guess that HGH and adrenaline are what we evolved to be the main triggers for fat burning. Glucagon merely tells the cells – don’t absorb glucose for energy right now. That is not the same as actively telling the cells to start burning fat for energy and the signal of low blood sugar is a pretty short term thing.
HGH is not just to tell children to grow. It has a repair/regenerate function throughout life. It is imo underestimated because all we see/measure on a regular basis is the little dribbles that get produced periodically after puberty.
But under two conditions – HIIT and fasting – GH increases a lot. Fasting can produce increases of 300-1300% in HGH over at least the first 5 or so days of a fast. HIIT produces large (100%+) increases of HGH, adrenaline, testosterone (all fat burning hormones) in the aftermath. The excess GH doesn’t just sit there looking pretty. It does something. One would expect it to be a significant something as those two conditions of extreme effort and potential starvation are – significant to evolutionary success/failure. A very positive incentive for the body to break down existing stores of fat. Time for the fat to pull its weight and not just sit there on the couch eating bonbons.
High blood sugar sensed by pancreas = Produce insulin Low blood sugar sensed by pancreas = Produce glucagon Just right blood sugar = Pancreas take a nap
This is binary.
Plainly incorrect per:
Blood sugar is what signals the production of those hormones – not the presence of the other hormone.
"If A then B else C" is a ternary operation. Further, as indicated, 'A' or glucose isn't the only input and your stupidity is factually wrong. A meal consisting near-entirely of protein/amino acids can and does elevate serum glucagon, insulin, and glucose *simultaneously*. I'd say learn to read, but you need to learn to fucking count first.
Both aren’t being produced at the same time.
...
Glucagon production simply ceases.
Again, patently false. Both are always produced at the same time. A lack of production in either one and you die expediently. Insulin doesn't move fat out of fat cells, glucagon doesn't move fat into ancillary cells for oxidation. A persistenly high insulin state stores macronutrients faster than it consumes them, but you cannot burn fat optimally, or necessarily at all, without insulin.
but Id guess that HGH and adrenaline are what we evolved to be the main triggers for fat burning
And your guess would be stupid for at least several reasons. The diad of glucagon and insulin is conserved across mammalian species. On the scale of months, hibernating species insulin, glucagon, *and* blood sugar all generally drop when hibernating and rises when hibernation ceases.
Additionally, HGH levels in humans generally spike at night, when ancillary fat oxidation is at it's lowest. Further, by your own precepts and probably because you can't generally read or comprehend what you read, glucagon is the primary insulin antagonist with respect to glucose and fat storage and HGH is/was identified as such for it's primary function, growth. Various forms of Growth Hormone Deficiency, both congenital and acquired, have been and are known. Obesity is not generally noted as a side effect. Frequently, the opposite is true as the primary side effect, primarily seen in congenital cases among children, is a failure to grow primarily height-wise but also gaining fat and muscle mass. Further, further, exogenous administration of HGH in such individuals can be ceased moving into adulthood as adult HGH levels don't, even when spiked during sleep, don't generally rise to even fractional levels of those seen in children, and, again, this is according to the science you, yourself cite. A fast or HIIT absolutely does increase HGH by 300-1300% or more, but the largest gains are seen by adults in the sub-ng/mL range for which a 1000-fold increase still puts them below the 50+ng/mL levels generally seen in children. Which, given the childhood obesity epidemic, it should be obvious that HGH, at best, provides only minimal, basal levels of protection against obesity.
Seriously, the HGH obesity/longevity fad died when people started getting ahold it and discovering, first hand, that your stupid guesses were stupid.
You don't understand the distinction between binary and quaternary, you don't understand the research you cite, you really ought to start back at the 4th grade and go from there rather than just continuing to be stupid.
I mean I literally posted a study regarding portion sizes. What is with you intentionally ignoring things?
Really? Dinner plates grew a few inches in diameter since the ‘50’s. That isn’t a coincidence.
There is a relationship between sex, drugs and food. All three are sensual pleasure. We are genetically inclined to seek sensual pleasures. When one declines, the others will advance.
This is part of ageing.
So non-stop fucking FTW, amirite?
🙂
How about a one time payment of $16.93?
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B07S9PTLNZ/reasonmagazinea-20/
Imagine a world where governments did not heavily subsidize farmers with taxpayers money
It costs $0 to eat a bit less and go outside and take a walk.
It also won't fix obesity.
And what will, smartass? One of the biggest problems today is that we eat too much and have a very sedentary lifestyle. Turn off the TV, put down the phone, and get out and do some real activity.
Right now, nothing will. That's why these new treatments are encouraging news.
Well you are wrong about that. Fasting - refraining from eating - is what allows the body to burn fat for fuel. Once someone is in that mode of fat-burning, then hunger is very easy to deal with except on high exertion days. But getting TO that stage is, I agree, very difficult without help. Especially considering that virtually ALL food marketing/advertising/availability is toxic to the very idea of not eating - and food culture is passing on the wrong lessons to sedentary generations.
So, now you're a nutritionist? A physiologist?
Or just another young person who believes that all issues can be solved in three sentences and thirty second sound bites?
None of my comments are ever three sentences
These new "miracle" drugs work because they reduce appetite and people eat less. So yea, eating less/moving more DOES WORK. It's just hard to eat less when you are hungry. So stop being a dumbass.
The cure is actually completely free, but requires hard work and dedication.
Naturally, the solution from the left is we should have some system of govt health care and govt officials spending endless money to ensure Joe Schmoe can go to a series of appointments to learn basic information that's been known for all of existence.
But thats convenient, because it puts the responsibility on society and the govt, not on the individual
Well, thin bodies are a human right. Right up there with health care and housing.
Right?
That might require the FDA to admit that things like "the food pyramid," which they promoted for years, was all based on junk science. So, fat chance.
I see what you did there.
And I see what your name does there too. It brings reality out in dribs and drabs.
😉
Want to lose weight or not gain it in the first place? Simply, don't eat lots of carbs and seed oils, especially not in combination. There! I just solved America's obesity problem. But now how is big pharma and big food supposed to make profit from American sickliness?
Yeah, who needs houses, we should've stayed in the cave.
My (previously) very rotund neighbor has lost a lot of weight since he went on Ozempic for his diabetes. In addition to treating the diabetes situation, losing 100-ish lbs of weight can have a huge effect on a lot of other health areas for an older guy - knees / joints, cardiovascular, etc.
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do…………………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
This is not a solution. Diet and exercise.
Altering your physiology this much to compensate for gorging oneself (yes that is what people with BMIs in the 40-50s do) is not the answer. Its reattaching a severed limb with duct tape and glue.
This wont end well. But big pharma will get uber richer
Just like gastric bypass, unless they change their behavior, their bodies will become tolerized and they will get fat again. This isn't rocket science.
It is a solution, but it's not the best solution.
No, it is not "a solution". It is a crutch. The only solution is proper diet and exercise.
I think it's great for people to have a tool (like this drug) which can help them achieve better outcomes, but the only way to maintain the outcome is to change your lifestyle to include exercise and a healthy diet. Without that, old habits lead right back to where you were before.
Diet and exercise.
don't work for most obese people. We have about 150 years of data on that now.
Fat people have no agency, I get it. Somebody has to do it for them.
The older I get, the less I believe in this "free will" stuff.
The truth is there is no such thing as free will. We live in a deterministic universe. However, for the non-philosophically inclined, determinism quickly develops into solipsism and nihilism.
If you're a philosophical CHAD, such as I, you can operate as if free will exists while accepting that you were always going to be chad as fuck.
And yet you look both ways before crossing the street, as if your actions matter, right?
And if how you grasp the world is not your choice, how do you even know what you just said is right or wrong? Or even that you are a "CHAD?". Or even that you are playing a big game of "let's pretend?"
So, if your appendix was bursting, you would dig it out yourself, because you have "agency" and wouldn't want to trouble someone else with it?
You make stupid disingenuous arguments. Taking a walk and eating better isn't nearly as hard as surgery.
We have decades of proof that "taking a walk and eating better" is not effective. It's time to accept that obesity is a disease and more effective treatments are needed.
It’s time to accept that obesity is a disease
No. It's time for you to pull your head out of your ass.
Being a junkie is not a "disease" either, unless you consider being a cancer on society a disease.
To the contrary, treating addiction as a public health problem has proven more effective then treating it as a criminality problem.
"treating addiction as a public health problem has proven more effective then treating it as a criminality problem"
That does not make being a junkie a disease. It is proof that humane treatment of junkies is more effective than throwing them in prison. This is probably true of a great many things.
"No. It’s time for you to pull your head out of your ass."
Thank you for this forfeit and for playing the game.
No. It is completely effective. Lazy fucks choose excuse making instead.
That's the natural state of all predators. They conserve energy as much as possible. Avoiding the physical requirements of the hunt. Until they no longer can.
Have you ever had a cat?
But us thinking humans, believe we can overcome our natural laziness. Just because it's good for us.
Yes, predators are lazy. But they aren't usually obese. That's because they eat a healthy diet and are forced to expend energy in order to eat.
I guarantee you that if you fill your fridge only with uncooked meat, like a predator, you can be as lazy as you want to and you won't get fat. That's because (1) you won't overeat on meat, and (2) it takes effort to cook.
wrong. it is 100% effective. if you don't do it then you won't get the results. what a dumbass.
Obviously, the alternative to Bob Segar's "Blame it On Midnight, Shame On The Moon" is not "I Believe I Can Fly.".(Much as one might wish R. Kelly would try.)
🙂
Free will obviously does not mean that consciousness by itself can change physical reality. What it means is that your thoughts and your actions subject to thought are volitional.
your thoughts and your actions subject to thought are volitional.
I believed that when I was young. The older I get and the more of human behavior I observe, the more I doubt it. Some of our actions might have a "volitional" aspect, but I'm more and more convinced that we're primarily passengers in our bodies, fooling ourselves into thinking we're choosing our actions.
Again, if everything you think and do is pre-determined, then how do you know anything you think is right or wrong, including that thought?
And if your self is a passenger in your body, are you saying you have a self separable from your body, like a "soul?"
So you know, the same phenomena told of in Near Death Experiences are also shared by pilots who rode in centrifuges at 9 Gs of gravitational pull. Pann & Teller demonstrated this in their Showtime series Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. The mind and body are one and the conscious mind operates volitionally.
I'm not saying any of this to shame you or anyone, but simply to say you can do more than you think.
if everything you think and do...
I just said do, not think.
are you saying you have a self separable from your body, like a “soul?”
Not necessarily separable, but yes.
is pre-determined
And I didn't say pre-determined.
I can fix obesity without intervention. There is nothing a lay person can do about a ruptured appendix.
https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850
I can fix obesity without intervention.
The evidence shows that isn't true for most obese people. Let's deal with the reality of it.
You aren't dealing with the reality of it. You aren't curing the disease of a lack of self-control, you're treating the symptoms of it with a drug, all of which have side effects.
Which isn't to say the treatment should be illegal any more than vaping should (not) be illegal. It's just a recognition of the objective fact that neither vaping nor Ozempa is as uncomplicated as simply stopping. Just because, in either case, you farm out your own responsibility to others, doesn't make it less complicated. If only for the fact that, in either case, as indicated, a lack of self-control is the root cause/disease.
What is your proposed cure for lack of self-control?
Frequently, it’s a problem that solves itself with consequences and awareness. Millions of people start to lose the ability to wipe their own ass at 25 and drop dead of a heart attack at 35, if they don’t suffocate on a sandwich before then, is motivation enough. If millions of dead bodies aren’t motivation enough, then drugs, especially lifetime treatment regimes, just turn massive clumps of cells into cattle.
Listen to or interact with strongmen, powerlifters, and elite athletes. Many quit or reduce their degree of competition because the obesity-induced sleep apnea, other injuries, or just general life disruptions are too great. The people who continue to eat with no apparent aim other than being champions in their own individual competitive eating competitions are getting exactly what they desire.
What about obesity induced by obstructive sleep apnea?
The problem isn't "lack of self control", the problem is lack of knowledge and education.
For example, you erroneously believe that it takes "self-control" to become healthy. You erroneously believe that there are pills that will fix your problems. Etc.
You sir, are the one not dealing with reality.
This is the same tired shit that comes from the left. "Everything is somebody elses fault".
The 'nothing works!' to lose weight is universally said by people who actually havent tried doing anything. Every. Single. Patient....that I have ever had that says "I have tried everything but it just doesnt work!" is always massively huge and eats 4-5x their actual caloric requirement. Its not 'eating a little less and taking a walk'. Its eating a lot less, and doing some actual cardio (even just a recumbent bike, which very large people CAN do).
Food is addictive, especially cheap modern food. And that sucks. Well I mean, its good that its cheap, and starvation is all but eradicated in developed countries, but now we have another problem. Its an addiction. You dont fix the problem by cheating. That's why a large portion of gastric bypass patients end up staying fat. They never really develop healthy good habits. They just slowly re-expand or eat more frequent snacks. You havent fixed the problem (bad habit/behavior) you have just told them 'its ok to be just the way you are!'.
Some things require hard work. Your attitude on this is the result of society's terrible shift toward no personal responsibility. Its sad
"You havent fixed the problem (bad habit/behavior) you have just told them ‘its ok to be just the way you are!’"
Did that make you feel better?
Not joining the Geek chorus in denunciation is not equivalent to acceptance. I'm sorry for you.
It isn't that the fatty is perfect just the way they are, but it is that it's none of your business.
Yes, let's deal with reality. There's nothing wrong with being fat. Obesity isn't a problem but being a lazy sack and not exercising is a problem because it allows the accumulation of visceral fat. Sumo wrestlers typically enjoy good health that only fades when they retire and stop their daily exercise regimen and it is only then that they really need to lose weight, continue exercising, or both.
And evidence shows most people can’t manage their finances. Should other people fix it for them or should they have to suffer the consequences of their own bad choices until they make better ones?
That's a whole other sentence.
There are patterns and trends in human behavior. This is both undeniable, and does not deny human agency and free will. To pretend it does is to be an idiot.
Diet and exercise absolutely do work, we have mountains of data on this.
Telling most fat people to diet and exercise doesnt work, but that doesnt mean it wouldnt work.
Just as telling an addict or alcoholic the way to fix their body is to stop drinking or using drugs. Does it work? 100% of the time...if they do it.
Personal agency and responsibility is a bitch. You cant overcome the laws of physics. Calories in calories out works. You just have to do it.
Nice theory but it doesn't comport with the facts.
Not a theory, covered under the LAWS of thermodynamics.
You are completely out of your depth on this one man.
It's not about physics. It's about human abilities. You are sophomorically talking middle school physics and ignoring the reality that obese people almost universally fail to lose weight and keep it off by choosing to eat less and exercise more. It doesn't work. We know that.
That is correct: you cannot lose weight by "choosing to eat less and exercising more". Nobody has that kind of willpower.
You can, however, lose weight and become healthier by changing the kinds of foods you buy and eat and choosing to move more.
This doesn't always work and has so many caveats. For instance, people who either age into obesity gradually, get it from a traumatic injury, or discover it only once depression has forced it find out the hard way that weight doesn't come back off with the same techniques it does with a 20 year old, motivated, able-bodied person.
In fact, all three conditions I mentioned can be heavily codependent on each other.
The injury causes sedentary lifestyle, that causes depression, which can be exasperated when a formerly fit person in their 20s looks in the mirror and oopsie, look how old and fat I am and nobody loves me and it hurts to walk! I'm going to diet and, ouch, it hurts to walk still, I'm still fat, that didn't work, and man not even the doctor can help me because I'm eating healthy and can't move and doc can't prescribe anything more to get me walking again like a normal person!
You "gradually age into obesity" because you have had bad nutrition since childhood, but it takes a couple of decades to wreck your body to the point where your metabolism breaks down. The fix is the same at any age: change what you eat and how you eat. I don't mean "dieting", but changing the quality of what you eat. If you don't change what you eat, drugs won't help you. Drugs like Ozempic result in a modest temporary weight reduction, but they don't actually fix any of the underlying problems.
don’t work for most obese people. We have about 150 years of data on that now.
No, it doesn't work for people who can't be arsed to live a more healthy lifestyle. Lazy, sedentary, gluttonous people. #firstworldproblems
The most significant dietary change we could make at this point would be to get rid of high-fructose corn syrup and other carb dense sweeteners.
Where is the evidence that people of healthy weight or less are succeeding at depriving themselves of what they want to eat and forcing themselves to exercise more than they wish to? What we see rather is that people who are not obese maintain a healthy or low weight effortlessly, without the constant struggle against their own instincts and drives that you suggest for obese people. Normal weight people are not "arsed" a bit, they just do what comes naturally to them. Just as fat people do.
The eating patterns of obese people are not "natural", they are the result of an unnatural addiction. That addiction can be reversed. Once the addiction is reversed, staying at a healthy weight is natural and doesn't require any special self-control.
healthy weight people eat very differently from obese people, and people who are lean and stay lean through adulthood eat in very controlled ways. I've known skinnies who will say they eat a ton! so much junk food! but spend a few days with them and you will see that they actually don't eat much at all.
No HS diploma unless you are within medically accepted weight range and can e.g. run 1.5 miles in 14 minutes. I won't object if you lost the right vote - i.e. voter ID ? Check. '...now please step on the scale...'. Bring back the draft - everyone goes in and gets in shape - even the Ted Bundy types.
The Washington Post hailed the new weight loss drugs as "a milestone for the obese," while worrying that the poor will not have access to them.
That’s just grand. I currently subsidize the excess calories that allow the poor to be both diabetic and overweight, and the lifestyle that allows them to be sedentary, and now I will get to subsidize the most expensive path for them to lose weight. I am curious what obstacles will prevent them from having “access”?
I am not sure one could better encapsulate everything wrong with the modern welfare state.
"Access" is one of those propaganda words of course, it's a buzzword for demanding more gibs (as in gibsmedat).
The government takes their 90% cut, 99% of the rest goes to pharma companies . . . and last but not least, the welfare recipient gets a free pill that may or may not give them cancer in 20 years. And you get to feel you're doing the right thing. Everyone wins.
Everyone wins.
Except for the poor schmuck who now has cancer, and of course all the rubes who actually paid for them to get that "free" pill.
Imperative that we stop blocking illegal migrants at the border. Jared Polis awaits their arrival.
Sigh, so now this health news thread is about immigration…
One could change the immigration laws to make it possible for more people to immigrate to the US legally, or just come here temporarily to work. And, since they are legal, we could keep track of them better to either make them pay the same taxes natives do or not provide them with all the benefits natives get.
One could change the immigration laws to make it possible for more people to immigrate to the US legally, or just come here temporarily to work.
Why would we care about the difference between illegal and legal?
Is that supposed to be a gotcha against me because Reason writers sometimes don’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigration?
It seems you are always in a conversation to score points, never to increase understanding or advance society.
I responded to the OPs comment about welfare. And by 'scoring points' you mean always proving you wrong?
You wish.
That wish has come true hundreds of times for Paul.
I honestly don't know if anyone has ever been as consistently wrong on absolutely everything as you.
Why is it good that “we” are “keeping track” of people?
you also get to subsidize their medical bills when their unhealthy lifestyle costs millions to treat
I am curious what obstacles will prevent them from having “access”?
Just in the future or do we count birth control and HIV treatments going backwards too?
No, no, no. It's all the fast food industry's fault.
Haven't you notice them pushing those cheeseburgers in the ghettos?
Nice, I'm curious how it works long term. Some ADHD drugs also suppress appetite for the first few years you take them, but after a while you adjust to your new hunger levels and eventually go back to eating how you would before you started taking them.
Well, even if it eventually does even back out. It will give me people a second chance at getting healthy. Getting down to weight levels where you won't risk injury when doing basic work outs like walking, (ask your average obese person if they have problems with their ankles. They'll probably tell you yes) will give people who are ready to make a real change a slightly easier opportunity to do so.
Guess what? Wearing a mask 24/7 is a very effective way to curb intake of calories. I knew there must be some use for them.
Also great for robbing liquor stores and such.
Amazingly, at the height of the pandemic, when it was commonplace to wear masks, we had someone rob a local store, on camera, without a mask. That is really being anti-mask.
Yeah I mean, you can take a drug to help you eat less, or, you can just eat less. You could even exercise, too.
Cigarettes, adderall, methamphetamine, and other drugs have similar appetite suppressing effects. Hopefully these new ones are healthier.
Sure, you can just eat less, but be unhappy about it. Did you think people who overeat want to be fat? No, they just want to be happy.
The title is racist against fatheads.
Ozempic had an annoying ear worm TV commercial that uses “Magic” by Pilot. I think I’m annoyed because it was always a great 70s power pop song, and now my kids go around singing it with the Ozempic lyrics.
It always makes me think of the movie Happy Gilmore.
I’ll have to check that out. Didn’t know they use that song.
Figures you would like terrible music.
Calories in, calories out... actual science.
Virtually every obese person who attempts lasting weight loss by choosing to change their habits fails. Actual science.
LOLWUT?
Calories in, Calories out. It really is that simple.
But we know it doesn't work.
It works for everybody who actually does it.
And we also know that virtually no one actually does it.
But high minded, self righteous pimps like the OP do.
Until they get a bit older and find themselves eating crow.
I've seen it thousands of time in my more than 65 years of life.
One thing I have noticed, albeit anecdotal, is heredity. Just look at a fat person's parents compared to a thin person's lineage. You can't tell me there isn't something. Even if it's just a genetic predisposition to overeating Or not.
And, it isn't size alone. It's shape. Where the fat is stored on the body. (think thick butts). Etc.
Deny all you want. Even though the calories in vs burned is still true, there are other factors at play.
But, that doesn't mean one cannot believe in agency. I mean, they tell us all the time that stupid fucks can become smart by going to college. Right?
Or perhaps fat parents just pass their piss poor eating habits on to their kids and it isn't genetic at all. My mother was morbidly obese at a time in history where she was a rarity. Not a single child of hers is even overweight, because it isn't genetic, she fed us well, differently than shd herself ate.
Yes, you will lose weight by restricting calories. That is an indisputable mathematical fact.
But it is essentially starving yourself, and therefore hard to do. Much more pleasant is adopting a primarily whole food plant-based diet that promotes a healthy gut, cutting sugar intake: a balanced metabolism, nutrition-filled calories, and pairing it with exercise and stress reduction.
That’s the same fucking thing.
Low fat, high carb plant based diets are basically torture when attempting calorie restriction. Spike your insulin from your carb intake then try and stop eating. Being satiated is a function of protein consumption, humans eat until they have had enough protein. Best to minimize (or eliminate) carb intake, double the amount of recommended protein, and moderate fat accomplished by eating whole foods.
WFPB isn’t protein or fat free. Nuts, beans, legumes, etc.
Also, you don’t have to be a purist about it. Go ahead and eat some meat, just be way more balanced about it.
If that were true, why did I gain weight at an alarming rate by eating meat and cheese (and celery and lettuce) ad lib on Atkins induction? I've heard from others who got the same result. Also terribly constipating, even for someone as diarrhea-prone as me.
Calories in, calories out is problematic in a number of weighs. What does one mean by in and out? A theoretical calorie is not necessarily digested and metabolized. It depends on the microbiome and other factors. So, a calorie into the mouth doesn't necessarily mean it won't simply pass through the digestive tract. Besides, calorie counting and restriction, in decades of research, has proven ineffective for most people. If you want to understand the problems of this approach, read some of Gary Taubes' books.
Where do you suppose the fat comes from?
While there is a grain of truth to your statement I feel compelled to say 2 things:
1. Semantic drift. In the 60s, before the internet, when fats were evil and the 'a calorie is a calorie' notion with regard to fitness generally originated, it literally meant simply counting and cutting calories. In the '20s after the internet and countless nutritionists and diet gurus have made millions, if not billions, off of various Atkins/Zone/Mediterranean/Paleo/Keto diets 'a calorie is a calorie' more connotes "Plug your weight loss goal into virtually online macronutrient calculator and don't deviate from that. Whether you get your macros from modern or paleo, omnivore, vegetarian, vegan or other sources... whether you eat 6X a day or 1... isn't going to radically alter your outcome unless you're Michael Phelps and 0.5s on your lap time would cost you a Gold Medal."
2. The 'microbome' crap is bullshit. Again if we were ungulates grazing in a field all day for 25 lbs. of grass to maximize a specific portion of well-marbled lean growth microbiomes are important. As omnivores who can consume macronutrients from a wide variety of sources, barring a handful of specific digestive diseases which are directly related to human genetics/physiology, not microbial, causes; the microbiome is between imaginary and completely irrelevant. Otherwise, an unprecedented rise in Celiac Disease causing people to be unable to absorb calories *and* an unprecedented rise in obesity means we can give up on the cold fusion endeavor.
Each body's efficiency in processing food may play a role.
After all, on the savannah, those who could absorb and store more calories from the same amount of caloric intake were more likely to survive than those that weren't.
Natural selection might provide an advantage to those who are more prone to weight gain.
honestly i am looking forward to the "all women are hot" era of history. that's gonna be great.
it is called alcohol....making ugly women hot since forever
Alcohol is calorie dense. It's one of my downfalls.
I can drink my dinner. But consume more calories than any food sustenance I might have otherwise consumed.
I can just justify it with "I'll die happy!".
lizzo
How about eat a balanced diet and get off the couch and the damn phone.
We know for certain that doesn't work for most obese people.
We know for certain that doesn’t work for most obese people.
The fact that some people are unable or unwilling to make the behavior changes necessary to weigh less is not the same thing as saying the behavior changes themselves don’t work.
It's saying the behavior changes are not achievable for most obese people.
If you are saying obese people are the ones who are unwilling or unable to make eating and activity choices necessary to live at a healthier weight, that is axiomatic. Why are there so many more obese people today than 50 years ago? Human nature hasn’t changed.
He is saying they are victims with no agency.
obese people are the ones who are unwilling or unable to make eating and activity choices necessary to live at a healthier weight
That's a baseless assumption. Are people who are at a healthy weight or less intentionally eating much less than they want to and forcing themselves to be more active than they would choose? Where's the evidence of that? What it looks like is that people who aren't fat aren't fat because that is natural and effortless for them. Fat people are different in some way. That difference needs to be acknowledged and treated if we want to reduce obesity.
Yes, Vernon. The difference, apparently, is that the fatties are moral reprobates with zero self-control. Obviously.
Really about choice. If we strip out the morality you are applying or the judgement the result is still the same. Obese people who continue to eat too much will continue to be obese. It is not a disease, it is a behavior. You may try to alter it with drugs, with other unintended consequences yet to be revealed. Big pharma and subsidizing uncle Sugar win. Or they could choose a different path, like adjusting their diet, and they would lose over time as well.
One of the issues we have in America is we want it now. As in Now!Now!Now! We've forgotten how to pace ourselves to achieve long term gains and how to celebrate the short term ones. Taking a pill for eating, sleeping, shitting, sadness, happiness etc. etc. is the new wave of self care. It is careless and care less.
Nah. Their just sad sacks full of loathing and self hatred. They'll live longer. Suffer from cancer before they die. And take their hatred and loathing to the grave with them.
Vern, you need to stuff it with your “thin people are thin because its easy for them to be thin” rhetoric. It’s bullshit. Thin people are thin because they are aware of what they are eating and are willing to skip treats and other unhealthy things in the service of staying thin. It's insulting and wrong. Give credit where credit is due.
Evidence?
what complete horse shit. you're just playing the leftist victim mentality. behavioral change is possible for everyone. these fatties are just too lazy and undisciplined. they just don't want to do it.
It doesn't work if you don't do it.
Get on the treadmill you fucking fatties! STOP EATING SO MUCH.
Fat people absolutely do not need a pill and need to just STOP stuffing so much horseshit down their fat fucking throats.
If shaming fat people to get into shape was an effective strategy, the entire planet would be in shape by now.
It's never been a more accepting time for fatties. Natural selection is no longer selecting against them, and every body is beautiful.
I will still shame them.
Right. so the important part here is not to help the fatties get in shape, it's to make sure they feel the appropriate amount of shame for their miserable existences. got it.
Shame is a powerful motivator. That is why lefties yell it when protesting laws they don’t like.
People like jeff have no shame.
If shame worked, no one would be fat.
exactly. look how the culture celebrates that super fatty lizzo. she's disgusting but making millions from promoting being fat. she won't make it to 40.
Let's try a new strategy. Encourage it.
Sorry had to pour bleach in my eyes after clicking that link. Now I'm blind and my dear gran mama is typing this.
"Lack of diversity
Researchers note that the body positivity movement lacks diversity, showing that it has not achieved the goal of inclusivity.
Most of the Instagram posts that use the movement’s hashtags portray young, white, conventionally attractive, non-disabled, cisgender females. People of other ethnicities, males, people from LGBTQIA+ communities, and older adults do not have adequate representation."
Cripes!
Nobody is denying your constitutional right to live as an undisciplined blimp--don't deny my constitutional right to call you one.
You still have to get vaccinated to reduce his self inflicted harm and elevated risk from covid though.
Get back to us in a decade an tell us how you've been so successful at this you're entire life.
I thought this was going to be about the decommissioning of farmland in the Netherlands and elsewhere.
No need for prescriptions when you can only eat what's on your government ration coupon.
I doubt if anyone ever got fat off of "eating ze bugs."
Farmers from the Netherlands are buying up land in the Great Lakes region for large livestock operations, which is causing annual blooms of toxic algae in the lakes.
They've been displacing the Portuguese dairy farmers in the CA San Joaquin Valley for years.
As my Portuguese, diary farming (three dairies, 10,000 acres) BIL, likes to say, "People do what they know".
A book to read: "Presto!" by Penn Jillette
A documentary to watch: "That Sugar Film"
It really is that simple.
Since I'm binge-watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit! and respect his rationality, I will take that book up! He does look more svelte than in the past.
I'm reminded of a talk I had with a doctor a few years back.
He was talking about how a lot of problems stem from diet, and was encouraging me to eat organic.
To which I responded "unless you can give me a prescription to cover the cost difference, that's not going to happen".
And that's the problem with "eating right" and "fitness". Yes, in an ideal world, all of us would have the luxury of "eating right" and spending 30 to 90 minutes in the gym (not counting commute time, showering after, etc. and so-on).
But we don't live in that world.
We live in a world where "eating right" and "exercise" aren't givens, but privileges we pay for. And as a culture, we don't even value them that highly. And that's before we even talk about how our culture has shifted to valuing more sedentary work and recreation rather then more active forms.
Given that, is it any surprise that the "natural" solutions (diet and exercise) are working less then they used to? Of course not.
So sure. Drugs for weight loss aren't ideal. Lifestyle changes are. But if that's not working for you, it's good that we have pharmaceutical alternatives that work.
And all that said? It's really fucking awful of this comment section that a medical problem is being treated like a fucking moral debate.
Just eat a banana or something. Stop being such a wuss.
To expand on my pithy statement: eating right is not terribly expensive, and being in shape does not require a gym. If you have enough space to lie prone, you can do pushups and situps. You can walk or run. You can buy non-organic whole foods at a supermarket that is not ABSURDLY overpriced like Whole Foods. You can live better, cheaper.
Just eat a banana or something.
Just not the way Ron Swanson does it.
For health reasons, I wouldn't recommend the way The King does it either.
For my own personal reasons between the two, it's the *only* way to eat a banana.
Until you pass 40 and find that, while you've been doing pushups for years, you can actually tear a ligament as you age from a simple exercise.
Who knew?
Fair warning to all the self righteous youngsters here, what you can do in your twenties will most likely seem miraculous in your forties.
Getting old ain't for sissies.
Bananas are basically candy bars.
With Vitamin C and Potassium for immunity, strength, and sanity.
You can eat perfectly well without going "organic".
Healthier food is cheaper.
No, it isn't.
You are so incredibly annoying.
Yes it is. And I proved it over ten years ago to a Seattle Times reporter who claimed the same thing in a 3000 word article with no specific evidence whatsoever, back when email was a thing.
I did a side-by-side comparison of cooking at home with what would nominally be agreed to be generally healthy ingredients: Brown rice, vegetables: (onions, broccoli, green beans, carrots, mushrooms) some lean chicken breast and a little bit of soy or other sauce of your choosing to make a delicious stir fry. Then I took the price of those ingredients broken down to a large single serving, and compared it to a fast food meal*.
It came in significantly cheaper. Significantly.
I didn’t hear back.
edit: *I was very fair to not pull a Daily Show and pick something off the menu that was particularly pricey. I chose an average fast food meal (whatever it was at the time, big mac, qtr pounder type thing) with fries and a coke.
Cooking at home is far better for you and cheaper as well. This is one of the reasons our grandparents were typically not as fat as society is today.
I know Seattle is an expensive restaurant town, but even with that, there are some general guidelines to eating healthy AND cheaper:
1. Make meals at home, stop eating out.
2. Organic is not automatically "healthier". Stop paying the eleventy x price increase for it.
3. While I'd never ask anyone to degrade themselves and shop at WinCo, I would say avoid the high end grocery stores and stick with the decidedly down-market Safeway/Albertsons (or whatever the equivalent is in your locale).
4. USDA Choice is more than fine.
I see a strong correlation with people screeching about "Food Deserts" and "eating healthy is too expensive". Like damned near 1:1 correlation. I have a strong suspicion that these are the set that are career pundits who eat at the trendy Vegan restaurant where an eggplant entree with brown rice and steamed seasonal veggies costs $38. Add glass of Chablis, $48.50 before tip.
Stay out of Whole Foods or Metropolitan Market-- unless you're trying to impress that girl with the "Hate Speech isn't Free Speech" bumper sticker on her Prius. But even if you are, the food bill isn't going to be as expensive as hiring the lawyers to fend off that #MeToo allegation.
Winco is not only cheaper than Safeway where I live, it's often better quality and the clerks there are much nicer than the Safeway (Albertsons actually) union idiots where I live.
There is nothing derogatory about Winco that you can't find at any other grocery store.
Now, go stroke your Tesla and feel good about yourself.
One, all Carbon-based life forms are Organic, so no problem finding that.
Two, why would you want to impress that bitch anyway?
🙂
There's no Winco in my area of NC, if in NC at all. Is that a step up or down?
That was pre Biden inflation sir.
But you spoiled it by comparing homemade and restaurant prices. You weren't just comparing types of food delivered the same way. Try comparing calorie-dense with not-so-calorie-dense home recipes, and the cost advantage reverses. Macaroni and Cheez Wiz, cheap; fruits and vegetables, expensive.
“exercise” aren’t givens, but privileges we pay for.
This is absolute horseshit. Walking requires nothing except for a pair of working legs. If your legs work, you can maintain a healthy weight.
And, a serious handgun where I live. A white guy out alone in the dark on the streets not far from me, is an easy target for the "disenfranchised" lower class. They figure you're an idiot as they walk up to take your wallet and cell phone.
And all that said? It’s really fucking awful of this comment section that a medical problem is being treated like a fucking moral debate.
The “Moralizing Asshole Caucus” of the Libertarian Party is on full display, yup.
Nothing to do with morals, just facts.
The people insisting that obese people can simply choose to weigh less are the ones ignoring the facts.
Bullshit. “Exercise” costs nothing: you can go walking, running, and/or do calisthenics.
Eating right means something like 16/8 eating, maybe additionally fasting one day a week, avoiding processed foods, and avoiding carbs; you save money that way.
And the cost of decades of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes is astronomical, and it's not a cost that people like you can keep socializing.
You’re perfectly free to stuff your face with processed junk food as much as you want and look forward to decades of disease and misery; it’s a free country. But don’t expect other people to pay for the drugs, insulin, heart disease, Alzheimers, and cancer treatments and care you will invariably require.
Pointing out that you are at clearly at fault for your health problems if you fail to exercise and fail to eat right isn't a moral judgment, it's just a statement of fact.
And you can’t expect people to stand by quietly when you spread harmful misinformation that cause other people to make the same bad choices you are evidently making.
So you just breezed on by all of those comments which shamed and condemned the fatties for lacking all self-control and making all those poor choices in life, then?
those comments are right. the fatties do lack discipline and self control -- it's demonstrably true and obvious.
Jeff is a fatty, so this is a sensitive issue for him.
"Self-control" has nothing to do with it. People with a healthy weight generally have no more self-control than morbidly obese people.
So many Americans are morbidly obese for the same reason so many Americans are in deep debt and make so many other bad choices: they don't know how to run their lives any better.
Again, that's not a moral judgment or placing blame, that's just a fact.
It's also a fact that they could turn their lives around if they knew what to do.
I used to run 3 miles a day up into my forties. To keep in shape for archery elk hunting. It kept my weight well within healthy limits.
But, experience tells me, running like that in my sixties, just isn't possible. And will accelerate my need for knee replacement along with injuring me in ways I can't even fathom.
You young folks remind me of me at your age. You lack experience. You believe the gurus who preach hard exercise for life. You're ill prepared for what's coming for your bodies. Despite your exercise routines designed to fend it off.
So, you can't think of any low impact exercise that will take the place of running? You are just resigning yourself to an increasingly sedentary life where you will inevitably get fatter and fatter, which aint great for the knees either.
that is complete bull shit. you can eat well for less than eating poorly and exercise does no need to cost money. you can do body weight exercise routines that will destroy you. you're just making excuses.
Not to worry, once everyone switches over the bug based diet, obesity won't be a problem anymore.
Also, fat shaming? Really, Bailey? How dare you
Lower on the food chain is always better. Right?
https://www.prevention.com/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/a20439873/cricket-foods/
They are also popular with lawyers.
I can generally predict which new medications we will see again in 5 to 10 years for the class action commercials.
I hear meth works pretty well.
Too well.
Could also just move to North Korea, I hear they have a very low obesity rate. In fact there's probably just one obese guy in the whole country.
I'm already this ->||<- close to a full-blown lecture on testosterone and AAS's superiority to Ozempa (and similar) by virtually any metric, their legality, and the far-reaching implications with regard to public health to nothing short of your own references to urogenital distance and social contagions and all the various implications with regard to libertarianism (and the associated "Legalize It!" retardation). Keep it up and I'm going to wall-of-text on your silly quips.
Seriously, stop, I don't have that kind of time right now.
Sounds juicy.
I dare you.
Double dog dare you.
OK, apparently I have some time but I didn’t foresee another issue: this is not the appropriate forum. And by that, I mean after a couple of tries, at least one rendition is currently stuck “awaiting moderation”. I admit my failure in being unable to rant up to my claims. I'll gladly pick any specific nit requested.
Suffice to say, ozempic and especially ozempic alone is, in all kinds of dimensions a rather socialist solution. Metaphorically: Essentially ignoring the 80% of workers and 19% of managers [references to Pareto and the fact that the average brain only consumes 20% of total calories omitted] in a factory and using the 1% to ensure the functional longevity of a company by limiting gross profits or ignoring everything known about compression and combustion engines over the last century and mandating, for the longevity of the vehicle, drivers only fill their tank 50% full. And the selective advocacy of ozempic *and* estrogen combined is like limiting profits of the company and hiring only women to save money or ensuring the longevity of a vehicle by putting only women in charge of fueling it (just to 50%), driving it, navigating it from the passenger seat, and maintaining it.
We call that "Adderall" now.
Staying up all night for days on end, clawing your own face, and violent outbursts decidedly does not sound like a better alternative to Krispy Kreme. For the Nazis, this was a feature not a bug, but not for freedom-loving people.
I'm almost shocked that, in a libertarian article and comment section, no one mentions, other than exercise, proven alternative methods for fat loss: fasting (intermittent & extended), time-restricted eating (OMAD & 2MAD), and low-carb diets (keto, LCHF, LCHP, paleo, carnivore, ketovore, etc). Eliminating PUFA-rich seed oils also helps. Even exercise is of limited value because one can't outrun a bad diet. And a fat person doing any exercise that is hard on joints might just do more harm than good.
Fasting is calorie restriction.
No, it is not. Many people who fast consume normal amounts of total calories. Fasting just means an extended period of not eating, e.g., 16/8 or 23/1, or one day a week.
On the one hand, sure. On the other hand, calorie restriction is just a permanent fast from the extra, unnecessary calories.
On the other other hand, SYMPTOMS:noise::DISEASE:signal! Whether you can't go 24 hours without sticking *extra* food in your mouth or you can't go 1 hour without cramming food in your pie hole the problem isn't the time interval it's your inability to stop "accidentally" cramming food in your pie hole.
No, they are simply different concepts. You can restrict calories without fasting, and you can fast without restricting calories.
The reason you can't "stop accidentally cramming food into your pie hole" is because you eat the wrong foods and you eat at the wrong times, leaving you with constant food cravings.
No, they are simply different concepts. You can restrict calories without fasting, and you can fast without restricting calories.
No, there is no objective metric of “a fast” and this is documentedly true literally into antiquity. If I restrict my calories by going 24 hours without eating every 7 days am I restricting or fasting? If I eat no meat, no sweets and no bread, drink water and juice, and eat fruits and vegetables or if I eat nothing from sun up to sun down or 0600-0300 am I not fasting?
The reason you can’t “stop accidentally cramming food into your pie hole” is because you eat the wrong foods and you eat at the wrong times, leaving you with constant food cravings.
Or I’ve fasted for 40 days, a period of time which would kill a normal human, and am literally starving. Or I just spent a week eating the 3 days worth of food I could carry 15 mi. daily on my back for the trip to-and-fro and, now that I’m not walking and carrying my food can afford to eat a little more, more frequently. Or I spent 48 hours stuck ‘outside the wire’ and you wouldn’t believe the kind of hunger a 48-hour mix of adrenaline, anxiety, and endorphins and sleep deprivation puts into you*. Or I’m 2 decades older than when I first did the week long backpacking and I can’t carry as much food as quickly as I used to*. Or I had a gallbladder or significant portion of my colon removed and can’t eat like I did before. Or I spent 5 yrs. eating 3 solid-food and three protein “meals” a day… or I spent 10 yrs. eating breakfast before the cows needed milked and at noon and at sunset… or I’m one of the neurotic Noom subscribers who can’t avoid cleaning my plate or telling people “No.” when they offer me food…
I know it’s a hard concept but, as much or as little as a calorie is a calorie, biology is even less macros and the time on the clock.
*These (sorta) were both really big in my 20s-30s. I never went in or outside the wire, but would routinely go without sleep for 24-48 hrs. in my 20s without feeling a lick of (abnormal) hunger or fatigue. In my 30s, 24 hrs. was without sleep was OK, but I needed to eat more to keep my energy up different macros had markedly different effects, but all of them were energy. Now, I just try not to go 24 hrs. without sleep.
You are fasting when your body has digested your food and is using stored glycogen/fat for energy.
In order to stay healthy and maintain a normal weight in the long term, it is necessary (but not sufficient) to fast about 12h every day.
When you are going without food for 24 hours, you are fasting for about 20 hours. If you then eat a 3000 calorie meal at the end of your fast, you did not restrict your calories.
Obviously, you don't understand how nutrition, fasting, or a healthy diet works, and that's fine. It will likely lead to early disease and death, but that's your problem and your choice.
All I'm telling you is: it would be easily avoidable if you knew what you were doing.
All I’m telling you is: it would be easily avoidable if you knew what you were doing.
What would be easily avoidable? I don't have any problems with controlling my weight or composition or early disease or death. You seem to assume that your solution is The Solution and that anyone who can't conform to it has a problem.
My point is that the distinction between fasting and calorie restriction is between semantic and virtual and, in the sense of any given biological effect or disease outcome, moot. You guys are arguing whether, in order to detect something, more signal is better than less noise (or vice versa) with loose and oxymoronic definitions of both signal and noise, when you both pretty much agree that the definition of detection is S/N. It's a "taste great/less filling" argument.
I could regale (or bore) you with talk of the tens of thousands of clinical samples I've run on thousands of patients numbering into the hundreds of thousands of tests/metabolites or the thousands of samples/tests I've run on myself. Lay out how I don't have a problem controlling my own weight or composition and have implicitly laid out how getting down to and operating at 15% bodyfat (or lower) causes general anxiety, including sleep loss, and lethargy in many, if not most, people who do it. Generalized anxiety and lethargy that, can and does contribute to disease and decreases longevity and, even absent those adverse outcomes, can and does lower quality of life factors undesirably. Ideas that are, metaphorically, 30,000 ft. above notions like "If I'm still burning glycogen after 8 hrs. of not eating any *caloric* foods am I actually fasting *or* restricting calories?"
I'm not saying no one should fast. Rather the opposite, I think a lot of people could stand a good fast, but not necessarily for the specific aim of depleting glycogen or entering ketosis, but for the aim of developing personal control and insight into their own and others' physiology.
If you want to be the Pope of exactly how many calories per minute constitutes fasting vs. what first derivative of the same function constitutes calorie restriction, fine. Just don't tell me or other people that you can't prolong your life and avoid disease if or unless you eat celery or lettuce, or don't, in the overlapping (or not) and by-no-means exclusive intervals between ingestion and emptying, glycogenolysis and glycolysis, and lypolysis and lipid oxidation. It's not objective, it's not fact, it's not science, it's not methodical, and it's not broadly reproducible.
And my point is that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Fasting and caloric restriction are two entirely different concepts.
No wonder Americans are obese when their medical professionals don't understand the difference between fasting and caloric restriction.
Fasting and caloric restriction are two entirely different concepts.
Right. The way velocity and acceleration are two entirely different, but inextricably, directly, and definitively connected concepts. The way Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are entirely different concepts than a Unitarian or Triune God.
Fasting and caloric restriction are two entirely different concepts.
My job is to provide them their metabolite values, which I did. Is it your job to make sure they understand and control them or is that, by your own precepts, not your problem? Or are you foresaking libertarianism and saying it's mine even though I'm under no contractual obligation or other requirement to tell them what to do?
The way velocity and acceleration are two entirely different, but inextricably, directly, and definitively connected concepts. The way Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are entirely different concepts than a Unitarian or Triune God.
The way, as I indicated, that signal and noise are two concepts that without one, the other cannot exist.
Yes, you have made it abundantly clear that you misunderstand fasting and calorie intake in this way. That's at the root of your problem.
Uh huh, sure! You obsessively run "thousands of tests on yourself", but you "don't have a problem controlling your weight".
And people shouldn't worry about that. What they should do is eat healthy unprocessed foods, eat only two regular meals per day no more than 8h apart, and not snack. You know, the way most people actually lived before the obesity epidemic. That's all that's needed.
You obsessively run “thousands of tests on yourself”, but you “don’t have a problem controlling your weight”.
You assumed I was a professional (correctly), why do you then contradict yourself by assuming obsession and not profession? Further, people obsessively collect and do all kinds of things. Just because people obsessively collect butterflies doesn't mean they're going to die young of a butterfly problem. Do you, like Tony or sarc, have a problem controlling your impulses and refraining from injecting your own interpretations into what you (don't) read? Is it because when you say "Not my problem." you really mean you think some third party should be dealing with it?
And people shouldn’t worry about that.
Is that their problem or yours?
eat only two regular meals per day no more than 8h apart
Breakfast, lunch, and dinner as discrete meals identifiable by the time of day and consumed together in the same day have been around since the Middle Ages. Evidence of people dropping dead young of cardiovascular events, seemingly epidemically, have been noted back to the Pharoahs. When, exactly, do you think the obesity epidemic started? How do you explain ancient people dropping dead of heart attacks despite the fact that, based on the same historic artifacts, they generally ate only two meals a day? Was it because they were eating them 7h45m or 8h15m apart?
Oh please, Pontifex of Postprandial Prestidigitation won't you illuminate us unwashed peasants and ignoble heathens of your divine solution to that ultimate of problems which does not belong to you?
Why would a "professional" conduct thousands of unnecessary tests on themselves?
Ah, yes, from the "pulling things out of your ass" department.
You have some serious homework to do, Mr. "Professional".
Why would a “professional” conduct thousands of unnecessary tests on themselves?
^Tell me you’ve never worked in a clinical chemistry lab, or a science lab of any sort without telling me you’ve ever worked in a science lab. You really are fucking clueless aren’t you? Never calibrated anything, never validated anything, never had 1,000 samples come in for an instrument and reagents that operate in sets of 1,024...
Even if I weren’t paid to solve problems and figure shit out or needed samples to fill out a run or a study or help someone else out with their run or study, corporate and private labs offer up paid and unpaid tests (for free) internal to their employees all the time and academic labs are, well, academic everybody knows Barry Marshall won the Nobel Prize for infecting himself with H. pylori. Setting all of that aside, and as I indicated, why the hell do people collect butterflies or run multiple marathons a year or whatever. They think it’s fucking interesting or a challenge or whatever. Really, you’re getting into Tony and sarc levels of detached, self-induced stupidity here where, whatever you’re cause is, you’re detracting from it.
Ah, yes, from the “pulling things out of your ass” department.
You have some serious homework to do, Mr. “Professional”.
Oh NO! It looks like I offended Mr. “Restricted Calorie Diets Make Me Fat!”
There is no homework to do. None of your knowledge is in any book anywhere and it’s pretty clear all the not-answers to other people’s problems are locked in your head.
Ah, I see, you're a lab monkey and you misuse equipment to run your own samples. Good to know.
No, you haven't offended me. I'm just laughing at your ignorance and your unprofessional behavior.
Ah, I see, you’re a lab monkey and you misuse equipment to run your own samples. Good to know.
First, *was/were* not *is/are*. Second, that would, again by your own precepts, be *paid* lab monkey to you. Third, you say misuse like it’s your equipment and/or you’re in charge of it.
Again, serially at this point, no knowledge, just the not-solutions to problems you can’t grasp locked in your head.
I’m just laughing at your ignorance and your unprofessional behavior.
OMG! I (don’t) hope I didn’t offend you with my unprofessional behavior on the internet. Call the internet police, Karen.
Didn't you say some months ago that science was just a collection of social clubs? Why are you harshing on the Fat Pride social club as if there is an objective reality that some practices are better for health than others?
🙂
And a fat person doing any exercise that is hard on joints might just do more harm than good.
My doctor has told me no more running on pavement.
a bike has no impact on your joints. go on a 50 mile ride. you'll loose weight.
Long distance biking and running on pavement are both terrible for body composition and longevity purposes (again, not to say no one should enjoy running or biking).
Walking (low impact) for 15-20 min. or sprinting (toe-impact) for 5-10 min. on modestly uneven ground min. is both sufficient and superior and can be done pretty much anywhere with no equipment. The only reason to cycle 50 mi. regularly is if you really like it and/or are addicted to the endorphin kick.
Much like dieting, a lot of this had been known since the earliest days of the modern fitness revolution and continues to be obfuscated and (re)discovered.
So, you buy the quackery of guys like Gundy, MD and ignore real science?
You are like all the other food addicts seeking the magic bullet that will get them slim. No white stuff. Low carb. Food programs. Etc.
America. Gotta love it.
Two home cooked meals a day, no processed foods, low carbs, no snacking, and lots of walking isn't "quackery", it's simply how Americans and Europeans used to live before the obesity epidemic.
Ackshuyally, cooking is a process and not a bad one at all, The only way tomatoes release their lycopene is by cooking.
Yes, hence "two home cooked meals a day".
What's your point?
You're almost shocked. In a place where mind altering substances are touted as healthy recreation? Where, college students getting drunk and posting comments believe they are contributing something coherent to a discussion?
Okay, Captain Louis Renault. This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
The libertarian view is (generally) not that drugs are healthy, it is that you should be free to take drugs and then suffer and pay for the consequences yourself.
Ditto with food. You want to stuff your face with Applebee’s Hand-Battered Fish & Chips and a Starbucks Caramel Ribbon Crunch Frappuccinos, and then pump yourself full of Ozempic to deal with the consequences? Be our guest. Just be sure to pay for it yourself, and don’t tell us that it’s a genetic problem or that corporations made you do it.
"Intermittent Fasting" is a redundancy. All fasting is "Intermittent Fasting," since it takes place between two points in time. And there are only two ways fasting ends: You eat or you die. Sounds like a shitty incentive to eat less.
What's interesting is how obesity rates have shot up since 1980.
https://infogram.com/us-adult-obesity-rates-since-1960-1gzxop49on65mwy
You can set the graph there to 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. In 1960, the obesity rate was 13.4% with 0.9% extremely obese. In 1970, it was 14.5% and 1.3%, respectively. By 1980, the needle had not budged much with 15% and 1.4%. By 1990, it exploded to 23.2% and 2%. And exploded even more by 2000 to 31.3% and 5.4%. What the hell happened in the 1980s and later?
The NCAA’s adoption of the three-point line?
What the hell happened in the 1980s and later?
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan
Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller Cola wars...
Of course, it's between possible and certain that whatever happened in the 80s is the result of something that happened in the 70s. If we had even the barest competence of public health professionals, this would be the exact sort of information they'd be researching and publishing but, instead we've got "Vaccinate *everyone* with an untested drug *tomorrow*, to hell with the consequences 5, 10, or 20, or more years on down the line." "public health" "professionals".
I have a suspicion, but not entirely proven so take it as you will, that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and its overuse in products might play a role. HFCS was adopted in the later 1970s into the early 1980s as a substitute for sugar in many products, including soft drinks. The sugar tariffs and corn subsidies (which should piss off most libertarians) play a role in making HFCS cheaper than sugar in the US.
I think, in part, you are irrefutably correct. The consumption of HFCS skyrocketed in the 80. However, consumption of both sugar and HFCS has fallen since 2000 and obesity has continued to rise. Whether this is merely a population-sized biochemical lag or if, predictably, humans have just moved on to the next calorie source or offset the calorie deficit with a more sedentary lifestyle (or both) has yet to be seen.
Ultimately, and I think we agree, it's a myriad of symptoms of a larger disease. You can plainly tell people the simplest, most effective, most scientifically and socially sound way and they respond with either "You're wrong." or "It's too hard." and, in that vein, there isn't anything that can't be refuted by the same argument(s) which, as indicated, simply allow them to both/either continue their self-inflation or toddle off to the next deleterious version of their current lifestyle trap.
And, it might just be as simple as modern food science has figured out more than ever before, to provide us with the taste, texture and sensuousness that we naturally crave in foods. So much so, that we are easily coaxed into eating what we find desirable in these dimensions, no matter how good or bad it is for us physically?
Leslie Stahl did a piece years back, where she interviewed the CEO of some multinational food processor that told her how they, through significant testing, came up with a formula for I think it was chicken tenders, that people actually could not resist when presented to them. Which she said they'd figured out a formula that was effectively irresistible. Boy, could I relate.
No matter how many times my logical brain says not to eat those, the sensory perception says, just a few. But it's so hard to stop. Just like a bag of Oreos. Or, an addict to Fentanyl.
Yes, modern food science makes foods that are “addictive”. But like any addiction, you aren’t born with it, you acquired it. And like any addiction, you can get off it if you choose.
The first step is to stop buying the products of modern food science, cold turkey. Whatever cravings you have can be satisfied with healthier foods. After that you can then gradually normalize your eating patterns.
Unfortunately, cold turkey is one of the things people most enjoy eating!
And cold turkey is a good and healthy food. Get most of your calories from cold turkey for a month and you'll be healthier.
It's the mashed potatoes that kill you. Get the same number of calories from mashed potatoes for a month and your health will be worse.
Ackshuyally, there’s nothing wrong with GMOs. They have bigger yields in smaller space and require fewer insecticides and pesticides. This helps make them cheaper and within the reach of everyone.
I just wish they would make GMO greens that, unlike regular greens, wouldn’t shrink to nothing when you cook them in the pot and GMO shell-free lobster and crab that you don’t have to crack open and do work to eat. That would be wonderful. ????
There are certain foods I can eat until my stomach hurts from being so full, but my brain will be telling me to eat more, a lack of satisfaction even though I am technically full. I think that the foods are so nutritionally poor my brain doesn't recognize that I'm full and keeps sending "eat" signals, or the food is so addictive that my brain keeps sending "more" messages despite no room left.
For Diabetics, sugar is sugar, from whatever source derived, and dosages must be controlled.
Home video games like the Atari & Intellivision!!
I blame MTV.
.
I just appreciate that the BMI is being cited in a scientific publication.
Next up: Food pyramids of Giza.
Is that whatever Mike Lindell eats on his Giza Dream Sheets?
🙂
It allows me to brag about my BMI of 21.8 at an age of 67.
These drugs have serious risks and side effects. The solution to the problems of obesity and type 2 diabetes are sensible eating and nutritional choices, not drugs.
Yes, you are correct, and I agree with what you are saying.
I just want to point out that people are.....human. They make mistakes, NOYB2. Or bad choices. Sometimes fate deals a blow. Better I think, to have this option available. The OOP cost is tremendous, though.
These drugs are a useful short-term option under a very limited set of circumstances.
Using them for weight loss is irresponsible because of the potential harm they cause and because they don't address the underlying problems.
And it's the job of doctors to correct those mistakes and tell people what good choices are. And if people persist in making bad choices despite being given the right information, then they should pay for their choices themselves.
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do…………………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
here's your weight loss solution: eat less and exercise more. boom, no drugs needed. consume less calories that you burn and you'll loose weight. get some discipline in your life.
Provide you're height, weight and gender for reference here.
Than come back in twenty years and we'll talk.
I once sounded. Just. Like. You. As did my mother along with other friends and relatives. The saddest part was, they'd still call other people fat but, never look in the mirror. They were just too blind to see.
I gained about 40 pounds in my 40s because I didn't understand how healthy nutrition works. I lost it all again without dieting.
All it really took was remembering how we used to eat in the 1960's and 1970's, before the obesity epidemic, basically: two meals a day, no snacks/drinks, no processed foods, limited carbs, walking everywhere.
i'm 63, 185lbs, 6'3". i bike, ski, climb & backpack. i carry a heavy backpack up steep mountains at high elevation all summer long. i bet i could carry a 50 lb pack up a steep trail for many more miles than you can.
Poverty, famine and starvation are more likely to end obesity than drugs in Joe Biden's America.
Eat half as much. Guaranteed to lose weight. Pills won't work. Fat people eat too much because they have no self control. It's like nicotine patches for smokers. They end up with twice the nicotine.
Still, perhaps the side effects will kill them off.
I actually heard that Dr. Jack Kevorkian prescribed eating anything you want only in half-portions.
It does make sense, and it is easy to incorporate with refrigeration, Tupperware, Food Saver vacuum sealers, and other methods of food preservation. You really don't have to eat everything just because it's put in front of you.
At least he didn't prescribe eating 'til you die.
😉
What you eat determines how much you eat. As long as folks eat based on archaic advice like fiber, nonsense like heart healthy grains, and limiting protein/fat then people are going to continue to be fat. Every single obese person with metabolic syndrome and/or T2D could be cured outright by a keto/carnivore diet combined with intermittent fasting without being hungry.
The problem some, but not all, recognize here is that zero caloric balance for a large fraction of the population is misery. The goal is not to achieve some body shape, but to be happy, and a great number of people have a choice between being unhappy by being thin and being unhappy by being fat. If there's a pill that makes people happy while eating less, that's a great thing.
It's "misery" because you're addicted. Addictions can be reversed.
(And it's not about "zero caloric balance", you'll achieve that one way or another.)
There is no such pill. The only way to be reasonably happy and healthy is to lose your addiction to carbs, sugar, and processed foods.
What pills and medicine can do is to let you survive for a few decades in misery while your body slowly rots away. But that is very expensive, and right now, people with these addictions socialize the costs. That's not acceptable or sustainable. It is certainly not libertarian.
What is your cure for that addiction?
You need to cut out sugar, greatly reduce carbs, and stop eating processed foods. What specific strategies work for you depends on how you live, but generally it starts with not stocking your pantry/fridge with those things and not eating out. You'll also need to find healthier alternatives to satisfy your cravings for a while (until they go away).
As I wrote upthread, I tried Atkins induction (greatly reduced carbs) and found myself gaining weight rapidly on meat, cheese, celery, and lettuce ad lib. Plus I became painfully constipated; I was practically never constipated before in my life. Plus it was expensive, as foods go. I didn't cut out processed foods, because hot dogs and other deli meats were relatively affordable, among foods allowed on Atkins induction.
And I heard of similar experiences from other people who tried extreme low-carb.
Reducing carbs is necessary when you have metabolic syndrome and helps reduce cravings, but it is not by itself sufficient. There's probably a dozen other things you need to change, depending on your habits and your state of health. There is no "one size fits all" diet.
All I'm saying is that the causes of obesity and metabolic syndrome aren't genetic or environmental, they are due to behavior and behavior alone. Furthermore, drugs like Ozempic will not fix this problem for you. Either you address the root of the problem or you suffer the consequences. There is no third option.
What kind of “addiction” is present at birth? This is not an acquired taste for food.
If these desires were acquired, then any wrestler could become a sumo wrestler. However, experience shows that most who try crap out; they can’t gain weight like that. And if you could just get used to eating so much, when sumo wrestlers retired, they’d stay fat; but they don’t.
We know why most people described as "addicts" develop the habits we call "addictions": They're trying to deal with some unpleasantness in their lives. Are you saying most overeaters fall into that description?
People with metabolic syndrome aren’t addicted to food, they are addicted to specific kinds of foods.
Overeating for psychological reasons may start metabolic syndrome. But the addictive part of it is an acquired (and reversible) dysfunction of how hormonal signals are processed by the body.
Low fat/high carb is the source of much of that misery.
What I say to everyone in this debate is something once said in Libertarian circles: If you want a better world, offer it a better prototype: yourself.
Doing that would be so much better than either Schleprock fatalistic acceptance of obesity or Dr. Laura Shit-Slinger finger-wagging body-shaming.
So, does anybody want to share some personal testimonies on what has worked for you?
Numbers such as weight loss, body dimensions, bloodwork, and sugar levels over time would be wonderful to hear!
I am 5'5" and 181. Technically obese. If I lose 1 pound, I'm overweight.
At the end of the Covid year, I was at 215. That was the heaviest I've ever been. Went back to a diet that I have used for a long time. 2 meals a day with a small snack after work. Oatmeal with dried fruit and nuts for breakfast. A salad and either soup or a bean/rice dish for dinner. I only eat meat on the weekends.
Never had a problem with cholesterol (i practically drink olive oil), blood sugar is fine. Was diagnosed with high blood pressure for the first time at 60 years old.
Bottom line is it takes time and discipline. First 10 pounds were easy to shed. Next 10 were harder. Every thing after is a struggle. But I suspect the reason most people don't make it is because it takes a long time. Once you hit a resistance level, you have to work harder. It's easy to get depressed and revert to what you have always done.
The other thing I would say is that soda, beer and mixed drinks all have a surprising number of calories. Drink a couple of cokes and a beer and you've blown about 25% of a 2000 calorie diet.
Yes, just add it to the list of things you can't do when you're overweight!
1. Eat fat
2. Eat carbs
3. Use salt
4. Eat processed food
5. Eat fast food
6. Drink beer, wine, cocktails
7. (Apparently, attend any sports event)
8. Have a desk job
9. Be a driver (own a car)
10. Get injured
11. Get depressed
12. (Watch TV or consume entertainment)
13. Wear the clothes you wore last year
14. Look in the mirror
15. Get your picture taken
16. Talk to your doctor who doesn't have any advice different from what he said to patients decades ago who got fat
17. Eat a snack
18. Go to a restaurant
19. Walk the aisles of a supermarket
20. Have any family members on a different diet who need different foods
Well, you can yell at the moon all you want to, it doesn't change these two fundamental truths: (1) the only way you can address obesity and metabolic syndrome is by changing what and how you eat, and (2) drugs aren't going to fix these problems for you.
Great ideas, and I fully agree with you on sodas. Those things are a bitch to avoid!
I wish there was a drink that was simply flavored, caffeinated water with no sugar or sweetener. I guess I'll have to use my SodaStream and make one of my own, if I could just find pure caffeine in liquid or powder form. Goody's or B.C. are good for a caffeine rush for a headache, but they'd eat your guts out taken daily.
I also wish that there were lozenges that would have all vitamins, minerals, fiber, and nutrients you need, that could also come in flavors like Italian cuisine, Chinese cuisine, chicken, steak, desserts, things that nourish the body, satisfy the palette, and temporarily fill the belly without actually adding weight.
Meanwhile, I appreciate your input and I'm all ears for other suggestions from everybody.
Just take a caffeine pill if you want caffeine,
For some reason, things like Vivarin make me too jittery. Something about a drink dispenses the caffeine just right.
...
Make smoking great again?!
And fucking.
🙂
The current crop of obese people are never going to be able to lose weight and sustain it, they already ruined their bodies in ways they can't come back from.
Once a person becomes obese, they will always be obese, even if they lose a little weight, they always gain it back, because once your body has been that fat it wants it back and makes you hungry hungry hungry until you eat it all back on. To keep weight off once you have lost it takes a level of constant vigilence, and probably diet pills, that most people simply don't have.
We need to accept that the fatties out there are hopeless, and focus on doing better with subsequent generations. I tell my kids all the time that the only way to not get fat is to not allow yourself to gain weight. You track your weight, if you gain 3 pounds, you cut way back until its gone. You can lose 3 pounds fast and easy, but 10 pounds or 50 pounds or a hundred pounds, all take a concentrated prolonged effort that is unpleasant and easy to give up on.
Exactly. And there are studies that show weight loss does not undo the damage the years of excess weight cause. All cause mortality increases with BMI but people are too easily offended to hear that.
My sister blocked me because I brought said the 250+ lb kid who beat the teacher’s aide unconscious was obese. She was offended that I used the word obese to describe a morbidly obese man (i calculated his BMI to prove it too). Because apparently even the word obese is now offensive. I love my sister but she’s exactly the type of person contributing to this problem with willful blindness.
I assume to end obesity these drugs will be mandatory for everyone?' Even those with Anorexia or bulimia. We wouldn't want them catching obesity from the fat people, or from the not inoculated we can't see or tell are obese!
There is a psychological and emotional origin to obesity... why not treat that, the source, instead of simply attacking (because that is what we do, attack) its consequence
I am going to simplify this matter to a ridiculous extreme that I know is impracticable but holds some truth on a certain level: get them all surfing and obesity will be healed from the source.
The article should be titled “The End of Personal Responsibility?” because that’s all this is. “Use this drug it’ll solve your problems!!” sure whatever you say Big Pharma.