| ▲ | londons_explore 7 hours ago |
| So has anyone managed to separate the effects of semaglutide from the effects of weight loss? If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker - lots of people have been overweight for a century now, so literally 10's of millions of people could have been saved from dementia had action been taken 100 years ago. |
|
| ▲ | jaggederest 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I have some individual anecdotal evidence. I spent a long time, basically a year, relatively heavy but on a very small dose of GLP drugs due to tolerability issues, and my labs improved dramatically, to a degree we redid them out of disbelief, even without weight loss. I believe one of the suspected underlying causes is reduction in fatty liver despite constant body weight and composition, and also inflammation reduction directly through GLP influence in other areas of the body. I'm not great evidence because N=1 and all the confounders, but I found that it absolutely made me much healthier without weight loss. I then went on to increase the dose slowly and have lost a bunch of weight and my labs improved even more, which I attribute mostly to the body mass reduction. |
| |
| ▲ | alyandon 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Similar experience here on minimal dose of GLP-1. There is definitely something going on here other than "you are just losing weight and that's really why you are healthier". With my labs at my current weight you can not tell that I am a type 2 diabetic. Previously, when I was at this very same weight in the past - all my labs indicated I was prediabetic. | | |
| ▲ | aucisson_masque 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Could be just because you stopped eating bad food. Things improve dramatically once you limit your intake of industrialized food. | | |
| ▲ | preg_match an hour ago | parent [-] | | Not that dramatically. Things like fatty liver take a long time to reverse. It’s not like you stop eating junk food and then suddenly your body is chilling. No, the damage is done and takes a long time to repair. It’s like smoking. You can benefits from quitting smoking within 20 minutes. But to reach the full benefit and reversal, you need 15 years. |
| |
| ▲ | anon291 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A lot of metabolic stuff is due to insulin and insulin sensitivity. This drives pretty much everything. Insulin sensitization is pretty terrible and it gets more important as you age.
Unfortunately natural selection doesn't need to fix this as it doesn't cause issues until after reproduction and often until after your grandkids are born. Semaglutide and glp1s resensitize it which is why they have these effects. My opinion |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cthalupa 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So has anyone managed to separate the effects of semaglutide from the effects of weight loss? In general? Yes. For this specific thing? We haven't even really shown the effects matter for humans. > If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker - lots of people have been overweight for a century now, so literally 10's of millions of people could have been saved from dementia had action been taken 100 years ago. Public health has been banging the drum on obesity for decades now. But humans on the whole aren't built to be able to resist hyper palatable calorie dense cheap foods. |
| |
| ▲ | OptionOfT 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're too soft on companies, but equally too hard on people who have a food addiction. | | |
| ▲ | SubmarineClub 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nah, we’re still too soft on people. It’s really not hard to eat a healthy diet. | | |
| ▲ | jaggederest 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As someone who has experienced so many different sides of this, you have zero clue the degree to which your appetite and ability to suppress it is hormonal until you get hormonally compromised (and then fix it, in my case, happily) Blaming individuals for a public health crisis affecting 40% of the population is absolutely silly. There are a lot of individuals like me, who overeat behaviorally, but that doesn't explain the scale of the issue. maybe 8-10% of the population has some sort of eating disorder, the other 30% are just regular people eating an american diet. | |
| ▲ | NorthSouthNorth 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this is easy to say as a healthy eater (I am one too, always have been). However, unlearning a lifetime of bad habits is hard. But yeah, it's costing nations billions that could be better spent. | |
| ▲ | agos an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If it’s not too hard why are people not doing it? | |
| ▲ | ThrowawayTestr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's really not hard to not drink. It's really not hard to not do heroin. It's really not hard to... |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | christina97 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| GLP-1s seem like a night and day difference in intervention adherence though. For various obvious and non-obvious reasons, it’s very hard to produce an intervention that people will adhere to to make the test group lose weight. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That is the question now. Some studies have some early evidence that GLP-1s might reduce inflammation markers a little more than weight loss alone. Giving GLP-1s to normal weight people doesn’t work well because they can have to work harder to maintain their weight. That can be a real problem as people get older where maintaining muscle mass is important for quality of life and longevity. I remember how hard it was to keep some of my grandparents at a healthy weight, so adding a GLP-1 to a non-obese elderly group is a no-go for study purposes. Going to be hard to separate these effects out. |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | My assumption was that GLP-1's don't suppress appetite so much as suppress the compulsion to eat when not necessary/more than necessary? | | |
| ▲ | eapressoandcats 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They also clearly have some impacts on metabolism. It’s well known that a challenge with dieting isn’t just eating less, it’s metabolic changes that make weight loss harder. GLP-1’s avoid that. | | |
| ▲ | gruturo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They do slow down the metabolism, yes. They seem to also act on some reward mechanism - making some stuff (not just food. Alcohol, gambling, porn, smoking, other drugs have anecdotally been reported to feel less attractive / addictive) have a reduced pull on one's will. They also measurably delay gastric emptying - to the point that some medicines, meant to be taken on an empty stomach, are not safe to take within up to 3 hours from the last meal, compared to one hour or so for other people. | | |
| ▲ | eapressoandcats 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s not clear to me that they slow down metabolism consistently, although that does seem to be the effect in some people. I rather think the opposite is true, that by increasing signals that the body is satiated in many cases it is avoiding a metabolism slowdown caused by hunger. |
| |
| ▲ | SubmarineClub 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > metabolic changes that make weight loss harder Which are vastly overblown. I diet every year as part of bodybuilding, at a range of intensities and durations, and have never had issues with sudden metabolic changes that make it harder to lose weight. | | |
| ▲ | eapressoandcats 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s very nice for you, but it is a phenomenon that is well documented by research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4989512/ | |
| ▲ | preg_match an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your body naturally tries to maintain homeostasis. When you cut your food supply below what your average is, and probably has been for years, your body will fight you in every way it can. For example, I eat too much and started eating less. I now eat normal portions instead of portions fit for 2 people. I have more than enough food and energy, and yet, I am hungry. The hunger is fake, I certainly don’t need more calories. But my body thinks it does based off of its knowledge. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tiahura 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s both. That’s why it’s so effective. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | wincy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My wife has hardly lost any weight from Zepbound but she went from having such intense back spasms she could maybe walk a few hundred feet at a time to being able to easily handle a week at the Disney World parks on foot. Before she had to rent a motorized scooter. Absolutely life changing for her. |
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With all the research into dementia and its causes, if there was a simple strong link to overweight I can't imagine that would not stand out in the data and be well known by now. Edit: although, there are well-known links between overweight and a lot of negative outcomes, and yet people are still too fat. |
| |
| ▲ | fcarraldo 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Nearly 75% of Americans are overweight. (over 30% 'overweight', over 40% 'obese'). Obviously, 75% of Americans do not develop dementia. Do more who are overweight develop dementia than those who are not? Well...it's hard to say when 3/4ths of the population is overweight. | |
| ▲ | peyton 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | Muskwalker 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So has anyone managed to separate the effects of semaglutide from the effects of weight loss? I was looking for that in particular. The study does say: "To assess whether the observed effect was mediated by weight reduction, we performed a sensitivity analysis adjusting for change in BMI from baseline to week 104. In this adjusted model, the treatment effect coefficient was attenuated from β −0.092 to β −0.066 (P < 0.001), corresponding to a reduction of 28% in the estimated effect size. This attenuation indicates that 72% of the treatment-associated difference in 20-year dementia risk persisted after accounting for BMI change, suggesting that mechanisms beyond weight loss contribute to the observed proteomic signature modification." |
|
| ▲ | throwaway82931 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All my immediate family members are obese. I'm not (BMI 24.5, borderline overweight at the high end of normal, highest lifetime BMI was 29.5), but that's through strenuous, exhausting effort over decades. I also exercise regularly, though I've learned over time how disconnected exercise is from weight management. At my weight, I'm not a candidate for going on a GLP-1. I'm sure I could find an unethical doctor to prescribe it if I looked hard enough, but I don't want to have the downsides hidden from me. My weight has been steadily ratcheting up over the years, since I don't have as much room in my life as I used to for living with the discomfort of caloric deficit. If that continues, I will probably become a candidate for GLP-1s, like my immediate family members, just after a decade or so of possibly unneeded striving. Lots of people are in situations far worse than mine, so I don't feel unlucky — but it would be nice if there were a clearer path forward. While lowering risk for Alzheimer's is not a priority for me, other effects of GLP-1s sound extremely enticing — especially reports of reduced food craving. |
| |
| ▲ | jaggederest 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Speaking as someone who had the same kind of reservations, I think you sound exactly like me, and if I had any advice to my past self, it would be "get on it as early as it's available, start much lower than anyone thinks is sane, and never ever stop". I got a concierge doctor who absolutely evaluates what I ask for skeptically, and pay for my GLP medications out of pocket, so I feel ethically totally comfortable with this position. The downsides are real and significant, it's not a "fun" medication, but just the change in how I feel is worth every penny, let alone the massive reduction in heart attack risk, liver enzyme numbers, and so on. | | |
| ▲ | Jaygles 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | What downsides have you experienced? | | |
| ▲ | jaggederest 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Gastrointestinal - nausea, extreme fullness, paradoxically both rapid and slow transit (I recommend lots of fiber, but that will make you too full too), bloating, all kinds of negative stuff, and obviously if you're on a calorie deficit because you get full off a single bite of food you're going to have low energy and feel pretty garbage on that front (thus ramp slowly), but also some jitteryness, all manner of things. I would call the first week on a tiny dose something like a very mild GI bug or flu, in terms of everything I experienced. That said, I'm extremely prone to side effects, most people I know who have tried them started at maybe half the standard dose and had zero side effects at all. I'm the best possible guinea pig for these things, because if I can tolerate it, almost anyone who isn't frankly allergic or something can. The other downside, obviously, is injections - you will need to learn how to use sterile technique to inject yourself or pay the incredibly high costs for the pens. The pills are also an option but I have no personal experience and their bioavailability is so low I don't know that I fully trust them. They will completely change your relationship with food and alcohol, too. Your tastes will probably shift, nearly everybody I know who is on them has essentially given up booze (maybe a couple drinks a year, more or less) | |
| ▲ | cj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my experience, basically all downsides can be solved by lowering the dose, and not escalating dosages as fast as the doctors tell you. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ivraatiems 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Semaglutide was invented in the early 2000s. Weight loss is an extremely complicated and societally mediated problem that we didn't have a 'cheat code' like this for until recently. |
|
| ▲ | object-a 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What should public health have done differently? |
| |
| ▲ | hattmall 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Treat junk food like cigarettes | | |
| ▲ | object-a 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What is junk food? For example — are cheeseburgers and French fries junk food? What about when you make them at home, or at a fancy restaurant without artificial ingredients? Is it certain additives? If McDonalds makes a happy meal without additives, is it no longer junk food? What does treat them like cigarettes mean? Tax them? Ban them within 15 feet of a building entrance? Put warning labels? Is giving or selling French fries to children a crime? Does this apply to food made at home? | | |
| ▲ | wackget 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most of the time when people try to define healthy food vs. junk food in a fair and unbiased way, the line gets drawn at "whole foods" vs "processed foods". A typical burger meal is definitely processed food because the meat is processed mechanically and mixed from different sources (usually with added fat); the bun is made from refined flour and refined oils; and the fries are thinly-cut potatoes blanched and fried in more refined oils. (Not to mention a whole bunch of chemical additives which are the norm rather than the exception; and "hyperpalatability" tweaks which means the food is formulated to taste unnaturally good.) You could perhaps argue that a home-made burger meal made using whole cuts of meat, a lean wholemeal bread dough, and potatoes roasted in animal fat could count as a healthy/whole food meal, but it would taste different to the typical hamburger meal we all associate with fast food. Fast food also has an enormous marketing industry behind it which pushes it in unhealthy volume, with maximum convenience, and at (until recently, at least) affordable prices. | | |
| ▲ | object-a 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why does grinding the meat at home make a huge difference vs grinding it in a factory? Depending on the cut you choose, the condiments you add, and the portion size, a hamburger at home could be Lot less healthy than a McDonald’s burger. McDonald’s patties don’t have any fillers afaict. The point is that “junk food” is a pretty amorphous and vague category. If you want to enforce portion or calorie restrictions you can do that, but it would have to be way more encompassing of a regulation than targeting “junk food” |
| |
| ▲ | ultrafro2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | (to all the boolean questions): yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. |
| |
| ▲ | to11mtm 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And have a real conversation around Corn syrup. Even today, a Soda with 'real sugar', at least for me, is far more satiating for thirst or a 'quick sweet treat' than the same brand/'flavor' using corn syrup, that includes both the big chains as well as the local names. If I drink a soda with sugar in it, I usually wind up wanting water after. If I drink something with corn syrup, I usually just want more of whatever I just had. | | |
| ▲ | brokensegue 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there evidence supporting the idea that sugar is more satiating? My understanding was that they were equally unhealthy | | |
| ▲ | tacon 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, the evidence is that there is no significant difference in satiety. HFCS is 55% fructose / 45% glucose, while sucrose is 50% fructose / 50% glucose. | | |
| |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Real sugar in your soda pop? What are you, a health nut? Must be a real my body is a temple sort. Seriously though, it's a dogshit thing to consume whether it is sweetened with HFCS or sucrose. "Even today, a Soda with 'real sugar', at least for me, is far more satiating" Did you know that in the acidic environment of a cola, sucrose quickly degrades into fructose and glucose (and if it didn't, your enzymes literally immediately crack sucrose into them). You know, exactly the same fructose and glucose that would be added by HFCS. The proportions differ a tiny amount, but this notion that one is satiating and the other isn't should really send you down a path of self-discovery, where you determine how you fell for nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | object-a 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The idea that there’s some magic ingredient that makes soda a healthy choice is why discussion of “Junk food”
Is so weird |
|
| |
| ▲ | p_j_w 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People have tried. Any time the government tries to do anything a substantial portion of the electorate throws a childish hissy fit and tries to make out that the Bolsheviks are coming to make their fries less tasty for no good reason. | | |
| ▲ | apparent 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's interesting is that it's different parts of the electorate that get upset. When Republicans wanted to make junk food/soda ineligible for food stamps, Dems got upset. And when Dems wanted to tax large sodas, Republicans/libertarians got upset. I think the former makes much more sense than the latter, since it is literally being funded by the govt. That's a reasonable first step, or possibly only step, especially considering that most people on food stamps are also on govt-funded/subsidized healthcare (meaning taxpayers will end up footing the bill when they require expensive treatments resulting in part from an unhealthy diet). | | |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a pretty insincere take. | | |
| ▲ | apparent 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Feel free to elaborate on my alleged insincerity. Was I insincere in noticing that there are partisan patterns at play, or insincere when pointing out that the govt should have more control over govt-run/taxpayer funded programs, as opposed to transactions between private parties? I am sincerely curious to know your opinion. | | |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | A "sin tax" on unhealthy products impacts everyone equally. The Republican plan has absolutely nothing to do with health (and they've thankfully barely even tried to pretend it is, instead just going with a "well why should they get treats?" punitive angle), and everything to do with punching down. It's amazing that there are tens of millions of terrible people in the US who will vote for staggering levels of corruption, self-dealing, stupidity, and incompetence so long as those people will punch down on the right people. As LBJ correctly observed - "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." It's amazing how punching down can get votes. EDIT: insincere guy, who seriously tried to pretend that it's "partisan" to find a difference between those initiatives -- one predicated on health concerns, the other on punching down -- is now crying for moderation assistance because I quoted a US president, in a situation that is perfectly applicable to exactly this policy that they are laughably trying to equivocate. Howler troll behaviour. | | |
| ▲ | apparent 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Replying to your edit: Amazing that you again allege insincerity, with zero evidence. You then go on to make false claims about what I said and avoid the obvious point that my problem is not with the historical figure that you quoted, but the fact that you injected race into a conversation that was about food. As for whether you violate the HN guidelines, the number of your recent comments that are greyed out tends to indicate that I'm not the only one who thinks you're out of step here. | |
| ▲ | weberer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You obviously do not know what the word "sincere" means. Please look it up before posting further. | |
| ▲ | apparent 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How does any of this make my comment insincere? Even if I agreed with it, I wouldn't understand how it proves your original accusation. I also don't love your injection of flame-bait racial comments, which probably violate HN guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unfortunately in most countries the blocker is politics, not the desire of public health officials to do anything. See the current US admin going after vaccines while declaring open season for peptides. | |
| ▲ | mpalczewski 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | this is exactly right. We've got this society that readily accepts unpleasantness as what you need to do to get ahead(I'll question that but it's beside the point). People regularly accept suffering of all sorts. However, ask someone to eat a boring meal. that's a hard no. So, you've got large parts of society that won't accept that perhaps they shouldn't eat like children. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | a-dub 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| that is the interesting question. also the effects of weight loss vs. the effects of disengagement with the engineered to be addictive "food products" side of the western diet. |
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | What is interesting about it? Proper sleep, eating less (including liquid calories), and exercising have been the mainstream medical advice for many decades. Obviously, most people can’t accomplish that for whatever reason, so another solution was needed. | | |
| ▲ | a-dub 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What is interesting about it? did western society engineer a junkfood-industrial-complex so addicting and so en-sickening that it ultimately required a sort of junk food methadone to wean itself off? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | emmabruns 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even more so. Not absolute weight loss but the effect of loss of the systemic inflammation due to a surplus of visceral fat which has significantly more systemic effect than subcutaneous fat or other types of loss of mass. |
|
| ▲ | loeg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker Public health has been trying to get obese people to lose weight forever, what are you talking about. We've known it's bad in enough other ways. It was just really, really hard (at a population level). |
|
| ▲ | RobotToaster 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Alzheimers dementia is sometimes called type 3 diabetes, so it may be both. |
|
| ▲ | SecretDreams 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dementia aside, there are plenty of very obvious reasons we should have been discouraging obesity and encouraging healthier eating and lifestyle habits. Lobbies and general government ineptitude have been a problem longer than obesity and that one needs to be solved first. |
|
| ▲ | atomicnumber3 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But... the profits! |
|
| ▲ | siva7 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker I imagine people hundred years in the future will think of our current society rightfully as dumbfucks. But should we be surprised? 50 years ago women didn't have voting rights; homosexuals were incarcerated in western societes; all because of moral and power implications of some powerful men. Not much different with Semaglutide. |
| |
| ▲ | kbelder 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >50 years ago women didn't have voting rights Where are you? In the US, women have had full voting rights for over 100 years. | | |
| ▲ | forestrywat 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you need to read up on why the civil rights act was necessary and the things it fought for. Woman's suffrage was fought for a long time ago, but that does not mean it was universally applied. Many many times in US history we've said something is true, but put some big asterisks after them. Slavery is over (except it's definitely still permitted in the US), it's illegal to discriminate based on race (except we allowed redlining for generations and arguably are still fighting it), rape is illegal (unless it's your spouse, then it was legal until '93. And a lesser crime still in much of the country). Voting is no different. Heck, one might argue we still don't have universal suffrage. People who want to vote but because we've put barriers like underfunding stations, long lines, not giving time off to vote, etc. we're clearly preventing some types of people. | |
| ▲ | siva7 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, black woman (among many other minorities) certainly didn't. I guess that part isn't taught in american schools as thoroughly as it should be. | | |
| ▲ | clipsy 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're seriously claiming black women didn't have the right to vote in 1976, you should probably provide some evidence rather than snide remarks. | | |
| ▲ | siva7 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then teach us.. when did they got actual voting rights? (i'm not trying to be snarky but sometimes it' not easy seeing the level of history ignorance in society) | | |
| ▲ | codingdave 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Federally? 1920. When did all the voter suppression become illegal? 1965. | |
| ▲ | clipsy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can't help but notice that you're still providing absolutely no evidence for an extraordinary claim. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jere 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I imagine people hundred years in the future will think of our current society rightfully as dumbfucks. But should we be surprised? 50 years ago women didn't have voting rights Good news: the readers of your post don't have to wait 100 years to have that thought. |
|
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker - lots of people have been overweight for a century now, so literally 10's of millions of people could have been saved from dementia had action been taken 100 years ago Given that the drug did not exist until only recently and it took decades to develop with the latest of technology, I don't see how this could have been possible. Stomach surgery has been around for 50 years though, but it's a bigger undertaking than an injectable drug. |
|
| ▲ | kwanbix 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Well, if you consider that is much cheaper to eat trash than healthy, and that food companies' only interest is in maximizing profit, you have what we have. |
| |
| ▲ | phil21 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t consider that since it’s simply not true. When I grew up relatively poor we never ate out or ate junk food because it is ridiculously expensive in comparison. We made our food from cheap ingredients. To save money. Yes it takes more time and is far more work and is less convenient. US society has valued convenience over everything else for a few generations now. Cheaper it is not. And it holds true today with my own grocery shopping. Cooking meals and being smart about grocery shopping is far cheaper per meal than buying premade junk. The few times I do have a cart full of products from the middle aisles I am astounded at how expensive it is. | | |
| ▲ | to11mtm 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | ... It can cut both ways, and depends a lot on the 'level' of poverty and specific circumstances, although the calculus has shifted over time. If people are working crazy hours, sometimes it's a struggle to even get time to properly shop for groceries, let alone cook. There's varying degrees of that too; i.e. I remember the 3-4$ frozen pizzas that could be used as a dinner and leftovers; And yes, at least back then, We could instead buy some chicken, rice, and a can or two of soup or stock to do something way healthier, at the same overall cost per meal... But it would take an hour or so to properly prepare instead of just tossing that 3-4$ frozen pizza into the oven and letting it do it's thing. Then throw into the mix where both partners due to work and/or school aren't even home till 8PM, and one of them has to wake up by 7AM to get to work the next morning [0] I've lived that situation, although thankfully that wasn't every night and we could balance between the healthy self cooked option and the junkish-food-pizza. But I've also lived the situation where both parties are working late, or the commute is so bad, you're glad you advanced enough you could afford the more expensive, but at least then managable 'taco bell' option. But then there's the sort of 'generational passing on' where we now have multiple generations raised on carry out, fast food, or microwaved meals. Sometimes where they were never given the teaching or responsibility of cooking because (for reasons similar to above, including more affluent cases) the general concept of 'a home cooked meal' becomes the exception case rather than the norm [1] [0] - You don't want to eat too late for other health reasons of course... [1] - And yes, that group really does tend to be less healthy overall from my personal experiences, even if their dining tastes are 'expensive'. | | |
| ▲ | phil21 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You are describing time, not cost. I can assure you my family worked pretty demanding jobs with long hours. And spent hours preparing food on top of it. The average American spends 4-5 hours a day on personal screen time, and this skews higher the poorer you get based on a few studies. I've found from talking with folks on the subject many of them are the ones glued to social media and/or the TV. I agree it's much more convenient to toss a couple pizzas in the oven. I do not agree it's less expensive. I don't know where you're buying your rice or chicken, but even at $4/pizza I can't pencil that out. Chicken comes with free chicken stock if you're buying $5 rotisserie chickens (or whole chickens) and keeping the bones and vegetable ends/etc. around for stock making. This is the level of poor I was talking about. Even at $2.69/lb (the price I paid ~3 weeks ago) for chicken breast, it's going to be cheaper to feed two people than split a whole pizza. Rice is less than 30 cents a serving bought in bulk 50lb bags from a local ethnic store. $1 of rice and a $5 chicken is going to feed around 3-5 people, or give 1 person a lot of leftovers. I agree one cannot live on just chicken and rice, but one cannot live on just the cheapest frozen pizzas either. I've kinda done both during my life. I lived probably a decade on junk food because I was either too busy or too lazy to do my own cooking like I did growing up. But this was after I started making IT money and could afford it. > But then there's the sort of 'generational passing on' where we now have multiple generations raised on carry out, fast food, or microwaved meals. Sometimes where they were never given the teaching or responsibility of cooking because (for reasons similar to above, including more affluent cases) the general concept of 'a home cooked meal' becomes the exception case rather than the norm I definitely agree with this one. Habits and skills are passed down generationally. Someone may not even know where to start looking at youtube for how-to videos to make their own chicken stock for close to free with a $5 crock-pot from the local thrift store these days. And that's probably intermediate level cooking skills, much less beginner level. My wife and I joke about our "depression era cooking" hobby. I agree there are exceptions, nuance, etc. to this topic. But I get so tired of folks pretending eating home cooked meals is somehow more expensive than an equivalent quality prepared meal. Yes, you can spend as much as you want cooking at home. But the same is true eating out or buying pre-made stuff. The time factor is certainly very true though. You get much better at it as you practice over the years, but it's always going to be easier and faster to just toss some chicken nuggets into the microwave and be done with it. This is not moralizing or anything like that. I have lived well over half of my adult life eating junk, and only since getting married to a partner who loves cooking have I turned this back around to my childhood experiences. And we certainly do not optimize very hard for cost - just smart choices by buying stuff on sale, in-season, and in bulk when it makes sense to. I just really cannot square the claim to reality that it's cheaper to eat junk food than it is to eat moderately healthy at home. It's one of those Internet social media memes that just becomes truth by repeating it so much. |
|
| |
| ▲ | WalterBright 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't buy that. You can buy a steak and a potato for two for less than a bag of Doritos. A banana costs far less than a candy bar. A bag of mixed nuts will provide many meals. Price out a bag of rice, a bag of beans, etc. > food companies' only interest is in maximizing profit Pleasing your customers is how profit is maximized. Besides, I bet if you were faced with two stores, one that charges $x for A, and another that charges $(x-1) for A, you'd patronize the latter store. | | |
| ▲ | folkrav an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Pleasing your customers is how profit is maximized. If you ignore everything like, including but not limited to, market capture, addictive products, lock-in, information asymmetry, planned obsolescence, dark patterns, captive markets, artificial scarcity, seldom-lucrative-yet-important services and any externality, very true! | |
| ▲ | dbalatero 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where are you getting a steak and potato for 2 for less than a bag of Doritos? Is it a 50 lb bag of Doritos? | | |
| ▲ | jambalaya8 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe it's 4oz of very lean tough steak and a single small russet potato with no fat, and the two mentioned are five year olds. | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can buy the day old steaks for $5-6, and a potato is maybe 50 cents. Doritos are $6.49. A Hershey's chocolate bar is $3.99-$4.99. A banana is maybe 50 cents. | |
| ▲ | to11mtm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | .... At least 10 to 15-ish years ago, I would actually be closer to agreeing; You could get Cube or Chuck steak for 3-5$ a pound and potatoes were cheap as hell too. Toss some diced onion in and You'll have a good dinner. How do I know? Well I grew up in a family where for... reasons[0] we were not that well off for quite a while. Cube Steak was one of the big things we did for a family meal that Dad cooked. (Chili was his other favorite to make, which was also cheap to do for how much food came out of it...) However the current prices of beef, I feel like you'd need to have a long standing personal relationship with a local butcher or rancher to make this true. [0] - My mother's over-propensity for being truly Christ-like in her charity to family and others, also sending myself and my three siblings to Catholic school to avoid the then-absolutely-failed Detroit Public school system were major factors. | | |
| ▲ | folkrav an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm québécois, my grandma came from a big family (12 siblings IIRC). She used to cook with ground beef all the time cause that's what her mother cooked with too - it was THE cheap source of protein. Meat loaf, shepherds pie, meat pie, beef and cheese macaroni, the whole shebang. Nowadays, when I cook any of those meals, it's cause I feel like eating that specific thing, but it often turns out to be the most expensive meal of the week. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is not true. Legumes/dairy/spices/vegetables are cheaper than boxed foods. Only question is do you want to spend 1 hour making it and cleaning up. | | |
|