Remix.run Logo
joshuamcginnis 13 hours ago

I think there's a distinct difference between taking medicine for things you can fix on your own (diet + exercise) vs things you cannot (excess acid production).

ceejayoz 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> things you can fix on your own (diet + exercise)

We have decades of research showing this is more in the "excess acid production" realm of things.

applfanboysbgon 13 hours ago | parent [-]

We also know there's a replication crisis in psychology and medicine, that it's easy to publish results that show the effect you're looking for, that there are rich, developed countries with obesity rates <5%, and that the obesity rate for Western countries spiked in recent years. This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to be fat seems like fanciful thinking.

ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We also know there's a replication crisis in psychology and medicine…

It seems unlikely to extend to bariatric surgery outcomes.

> This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to be fat seems like fanciful thinking.

This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to lack willpower seems like fanciful thinking.

applfanboysbgon 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course they aren't genetically pre-ordained to lack willpower. That's why they could stop being fat, if only they chose to. The issue is cultural, not genetic. You don't go from 12% obesity to 40% obesity in 40 years due to a genetic shift, but rather a cultural one.

ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That's why they could stop being fat, if only they chose to.

This seems like one of those "replication crisis" claims.

> That's why they could stop being fat, if only they chose to.

So they're pre-ordained not to?

I have a loved one who certainly chooses to, to the point of having had bariatric surgery; GLPs have been an important follow-up. It's really not as simple as you make it out to be.

> You don't go from 12% obesity to 40% obesity in 40 years due to a genetic shift, but rather a cultural one.

What if that cultural one is letting the processed foods industry engineer everything to be deeply addicting?

applfanboysbgon 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> So they're pre-ordained not to?

No. I'm saying it's within their power, so they aren't pre-ordained either way. You were suggesting that it's impossible for a large percentage of the population to not be obese without medical intervention, that it was comparable to excessive acid production which is a genetic anomaly and out of an individual's own control.

> What if that cultural one is letting the processed foods industry engineer everything to be deeply addicting?

Sure, the industry bears some blame and is part of the cultural issue, but even if presented with addicting substances, it is both an individual choice to consume them and a collective cultural choice not to regulate them.

cflewis 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, you see, this is the same thinking that leads you to say "People who are depressed should just think happier thoughts."

amanaplanacanal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or some other sort of environmental change. Maybe it's hormone related due to the amount of plastic we use? Or possibly birth control drugs contaminating the water supply? Maybe it's due to lithium levels in the water supply? You don't know, and neither do I.

ksenzee 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What evidence do you have that it is a cultural shift, rather than, say, a chemical in the environment that wasn't there before, or a difference in the food supply?

faangguyindia 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Are food options today not more calorie-dense than they were back in time? More easily accessible? Calories have become increasingly cheap and dense to come by. You've lots of processed food being engineered to be highly palatable and calorie dense at an industrial scale.

Plus, cars and all "comforts" eating into your physical activities?

dotcoma 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The real shift happened in what BigFood started putting into their highly processed food, imho.

PaulHoule 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

America is more obese than many nations but obesity is increasing the world over.

The timing is just about right to blame it on Reagan, either the theory that neoliberalism leads to "structured stress" or than some environmental chemical got approved in that time frame.

thereisnospork 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to be fat seems like fanciful thinking.

The idea that it being genetic or not should matter is odd? Who cares why people are fat? They inarguably are fat and will by all available evidence be skinnier and healthier on a glp drug.

I fail to see the need for additional analysis or consideration?

Digging into the root cause or petitioning to tweak the food supply to reduce HFCS are admirable, but entirely orthogonal to the questions: "will taking ozempic et al make an overweight person's life better?" and "will making ozempic et al widely available improve America as a whole?"

applfanboysbgon 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> I fail to see the need for additional analysis or consideration?

Having 40% of your population on a lifetime drug seems like it could cause significant issues in the long-term, especially if there are unforeseen longterm side effects. Medical intervention seems like it should be a last resort, not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really should be.

dghlsakjg 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Look up what percentage of people take statins long term at some point in their life. For people in certain age brackets it's more than the 40% of people taking GLP-1s that you are so concerned with. Why don't they just lower their cholesterol via other means?

Look up what percentage of people take antidepressants. Why don't they just try being happy?

Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?

You are only picking on GLP-1s which happen to treat obesity among other illnesses. All of the other medications I listed are treating conditions with non-pharmaceutical interventions, but you haven't stated a problem with a huge percentage of the population using them.

If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.

> not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really should be.

What makes you think that these people haven't tried other options. What makes you think this is the default option, and not a later option? Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat? Do you think that people that can get PHDs doing world changing science, climb mountains, run Fortune 500 companies, hell - run marathons, are just too undisciplined or stupid to lose weight?

applfanboysbgon 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Look up what percentage of people take antidepressants. Why don't they just try being happy?

If there's a genuine chemical imbalance that needs correcting, whether that's causing obesity or depression it certainly warrants medical intervention. That should only account for a couple of % of people, however. If 40% of your population is on antidepressants, in other words 40% of your population is chronically depressed, that points to much, much deeper root issues pervading society, and I do not in fact think it's a great idea to "solve" that by drugging up half the population on antidepressants for life either.

> Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?

It's funny you mention this because American doctors will in fact tell people who literally need painkillers to function to tough it out, after overcorrecting for a period where they were handing out chronic medication like candy and causing more problems than they solved.

> If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.

My problem is with the scale of chronic medication use. Chronic medication is life-saving as a targeted intervention for people who genuinely need it, and I have no problems with that. Using it as a population-wide bandaid for every societal issue instead of fixing root causes is bound to end poorly, though. What happens when 50% of the population is on some cocktail of GLPs, stimulants, painkillers, sleep meds, and antidepressants simultaneously because it was deemed easier and more instantly gratifying to prescribe chronic medication for everything than addressing any actual causes?

> Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat?

I think they are perfectly aware of diet and exercise and mostly choose not to bother because it has become culturally accepted to disregard one's own health for the joy of a Big Mac and a Coca Cola or 15. It is worth noting that the obesity rate for Asian Americans is only 16%, despite being exposed to the same environment and food industry. Did eg. caucasian American genetics take a nosedive in 40 years, or did they just normalise being self-indulgent to an unhealthy degree? I think one of those explanations is more likely than the other, even if it's not something they'd like to hear.

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> especially if there are unforeseen longterm side effects

GLP-1s have been used widely for 20+ years now.

crooked-v 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not on GLP-1s, but I've been looking at very seriously because something I can't "fix on my own" is just... always feeling hungry. That's just how my body works. Exercise doesn't help; there's no reasonable amount of exercise that will help with my office-worker stomach wanting 3000 calories a day. So far through my life I've just lived with it and managed my diet as best I can and it just absolutely sucks.

buck746 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Terzepitide took me from always wanting food to actually being able to focus on other things fully. I was concerned with being able to inject myself weekly, but it's easy and worth the 1-2 minutes a week. If you start, the dosage schedule is more a suggestion than an absolute. I noticed side effects getting worse so I dropped back to a lower dose and have held there for a couple months now. Only real drawback has been from a friend giving me a hard time after seeing the vial in my fridge, but he seems to be coming around after seeing obvious results.

throwatdem12311 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would exercise use help? Burning calories makes your body want to eat, obviously - this is how our bodies are supposed to work.

untrust 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Exercise absolutely helps as it helps regulate blood sugar more effectively. A surprising effect of building muscle and exercising is that your body becomes more insulin sensitive and your blood sugar stabilizes instead of having drastic swings.

habinero 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, I posted elsewhere about it, but GLPs instantly switched that feeling off like it was throwing a breaker. It's wild.

saberience 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exercise will help. It's Physics, it's not an opinion based thing that works for some people and not others. It's energy in vs energy out. If you simply eat less calories then you exercise/use, you WILL lose weight.

I don't get this weird thing people do where they act like their bodies don't follow the laws of conservation of energy.

hackingonempty 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is of course true that caloric input is a thermodynamic limit and restricting it sufficiently relative to caloric expenditure will cause you to lose weight. (Lisa, in this household we obey the laws of thermodynamics...)

However, not all calories are the same, metabolism is dynamic, and the brain is complex and exerts a powerful influence over behavior.

Increasing exercise will make you hungrier and most people are simply unable to resist this and end up not losing weight. It is why there is a common saying that "you cannot outrun your fork." Restricting calories generally is difficult in today's environment with plentiful calorie dense food everywhere. People don't cook as much as they used to and restaurant meals have more calories than ever.

AFAIK GLP-1 drugs work because they calm the minds desire to eat which is baked in deeply from millions of years of our ancestors struggling to get sufficient food.

Aaargh20318 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem with exercise is that our bodies are quite efficient with their energy usage. A few minutes of ‘calories in’ takes many hours of ‘calories out’ to burn.

You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day, even if you somehow were able to dedicate all your time to exercising you would still have to limit your food intake.

Add to that the fact that exercise is mind numbingly boring and you have to conclude it is not a practical solution at all.

buck746 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

More importantly we have decades of irrefutable evidence that diet and exercise alone are about as effective as abstinence only sex education. It's great there are people that can just decide to eat less, but it's foolish to assume that can work for everyone.

It's odd how people act as tho there's a "moral argument" against using a tool to help reach the goal. It feels a lot like the argument that "morals are from religion", as if you need god to know that murder isn't really a productive activity (unless you work in a slaughterhouse).

I wish American money could go back to having "mind your business" printed on it instead of "in god we trust", it was a huge loss to all of us when that garbage was passed. It was also a huge loss when everyone just decided to go along with saying "taxpayer money" instead of saying "public funds/money", but slippery psychological slopes are everywhere.

Aaargh20318 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's great there are people that can just decide to eat less, but it's foolish to assume that can work for everyone.

More importantly: I don’t want to eat less. I want to eat more. There is so much amazing food.

amluto 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day

This is not true. There are plenty of activities that a healthy, enthusiastic person can do for quite a few hours per day that burn calories rapidly, and it takes serious effort to eat enough to offset the calorie usage. Think distance running, skiing, cycling, rowing, etc.

Sometimes people go to extreme technological measures to optimize their ability to consume calories (see recent record-setting marathon results). Sometimes people rely on extremely calorie-dense foods (butter, nuts, etc) so they can carry meals with them that are not wildly calorie-deficient for their long, unsupported travels.

When people are burning calories at this rate, they are probably not doing it for exercise — they’re probably either doing it because it’s fun or it’s part of an adventure.

I’m suspect that, if someone is overweight but in good enough shape to cross-country ski for six hours a day, then even if their body tends toward telling them to eat too much, they could probably lose weight by doing so for many days in a row.

tayo42 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can pick better activities for exercise. You don't have to run on a treadmill

hackingonempty 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day, even if you somehow were able to dedicate all your time to exercising you would still have to limit your food intake.

People racing the Tour Divide, a 2700 mile solo unsupported bikepacking race through the Rocky Mountains, lose weight when riding their bikes 18 hours a day for 2-3+ weeks straight. They describe being unable to choke down enough food even though what they are eating is very calorie dense. Hotdogs, burritos, burgers, pizza, a pound of gummies every day, chocolate milk and ice cream when resupplying, McDonalds where they fill their hydration bladders with PowerAde, anything they can get their hands on quickly when they arrive at a small mountain town which frequently has nothing more than a gas station.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tourdivide/posts/24754803527...

Obviously not a practical solution as you say but they do exercise enough to offset the food when eating as much as they can.

phil21 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Great? When I worked landscaping I would plow through 2-3 double quarter pounder meals every lunch break. And then a dominos pizza or three when I got home for dinner. Plus a gallon or two of full sugar soda throughout the day, and snacks.

It’s not practical in the least for the average office worker to outrun the fork. It’s just silly advice and pointless to even bring up. When it takes an hour or more of treadmill work to cancel a single donut you don’t need to think about it any longer than that.

You exercise for health. Not to lose weight. Until you are at the margins and can consistently create an extra 100-200 calorie deficit by walking for an hour every evening or whatever.

My three gym days a week don’t do much for the scale. Those are for physical and mental health. The weight part is in the kitchen.

dghlsakjg 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's physics that you just need to go a certain speed to put an object in orbit.

That doesn't make it an easy thing to do.

Fat people are aware of diet and exercise. They aren't stupid.

Until you have been chronically obese, or helped someone that is chronically obese, you don't understand that it is a deeply rooted subconscious issue, not a physics issue.

Fat people don't want to be fat, anymore than depressed people want to be sad. But something in their minds or bodies makes it non-optional. Pharmaceutical interventions change that thing.

When people - in their millions - say that this is the only effective thing, you could, I dunno, believe them. Or at least believe the pharmacological/medical science, which is, to circle back, all just physics.

SpaceNugget 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They said exercise doesn't help them with reducing the feeling of hunger. I don't know why they thought it would, because generally if you do a lot of exercise you get more hungry not less hungry, but regardless, you are responding to something that wasn't said.

crooked-v 6 hours ago | parent [-]

My meaning was more that indulging in that hunger would result in me just eating an exorbitant number of calories, way past anything it would be reasonable to burn off without spending 4 hours a day every day in the gym... but you're completely right that even if I did spend that time in the gym it wouldn't help with the calories-in-calories-out equation, because it would just make me more hungry.

crooked-v 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exercise will burn calories, yes. But my life doesn't fit the several hours of exercise a day, every day, forever, that would be needed as an already-small person to burn the 1000+ excess calories a day my body is constantly hungry for.

habinero 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why? They both get you to the same place, and one is vastly more likely to work. I don't get the weird moralizing around this.