Because our bodies are delicate systems of networks, and inputs in one area can have complex/unpredictable outputs elsewhere, it seems.

Typically, if something "works", there often appear to be side effects. A free lunch is rare.

https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/understanding-medica...

One argument would be that Ozempic doesn't give your body any additional resources. It just triggers your body to behave in a different way. But if the changes it causes are universally good, why didn't evolution already make your body work that way?

I suppose the counterargument would be that modern life is different from the evolutionary environment, and so it's possible for a change to be beneficial now that wasn't beneficial then. But it would still be good to understand better the mechanism of the effect of Ozempic on things like addiction.

> one downside is obvious from the comments here - some people will stop exercising.

Is there any source on this? The precise opposite has happened in my experience. I was an early evangelist for these drugs, and have many dozens of people who I talk to regularly who have since taken them over the years. I cannot think of a single person who went from regular exercise to reducing or eliminating it after taking the drug. Exactly zero.

I can think of well over a dozen folks who started regular exercise for the first time in their lives after losing 50 or more pounds.

Certainly many who did not change their habits either way. But overall this matches with what the trainers in my gym report. They were initially worried GLP-1s would reduce their client base, but the exact opposite has happened for them. It's brought an entirely new demographic into play and business is booming.

> which I'd argue are more important than the weight loss,

You would be making an argument contrary to most established science on the topic. Exercise is important and quite beneficial to health. Obesity is far worse. Not many obese people working out regularly to start with though, so I don't think this point holds much water to begin with. We are not a nation full of obese gym rats.

We should stop telling people that exercise is a primary driver of weight loss.

That said, exercise has a direct impact on metabolic health which is pretty necessary to maintain a healthy weight.

Most people are achieving weight loss by dietary changes. It takes a massive amount of exercise to significantly alter your calorie balance. Definitely good for you either way but most people who exercise also want to be toned or muscular.

1. They don't make you stop altogether, they just make you feel full on less calories, which is good when you are in a calorie dense environment like modern society.

2. Not necessary here either if dietary habits are permanently altered, which can happen more easily after several months on GLPs.

3. Perhaps!

There are massive downsides to any antibiotic. A single dose of a broad-spectrum antibiotic can permanently alter a kid's gut microbiome and make them more likely to develop a variety of mental health issues like depression

https://theconversation.com/how-childhood-infections-requiri...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-single-course-o...

As someone with a severe allergy, lots of downsides to me!

Penicillin resistant bacteria?

Not by themselves - its the result of weight loss that can make your skin sag a bit.

That is the silliest take ever. I am on GLP-1s, and I still enjoy my food..maybe more than ever before.