Doing your own research (1 Viewer)

[MTskibum]

I googled 2 countries which I don't think have obesity problems, japan and norway. I used the search string "norway(or japan) sugar consumption per capita by year"

Japan's sugar intake has been on general decline since 1972!

Sugar Consumption Per Capita in Japan

We like numbers. We collect them, analyse them and look for stories they might be hiding... We aim to put useful data and interesting reports under a single roof to save you hours of searching and disappointment at poor results. We want to be able to offer our products to a wide...

www.helgilibrary.com

Norway is at lowest sugar intake in last 44 years, or at least they were 5 years ago, which is probably good enough for this discussion.

Sweet spot: Norwegians cut sugar intake to lowest level in 44 years

Norway has had a sugar tax since 1922 and more recently has created separate taxes for confectionary and sugary drinks

www.theguardian.com

I am quoting my post to argue with myself. I was wrong, i dont think it is caused by sugar.Norway the sugar has gone down, however their obesity rate has gone up a very significant amount.

The number of obese people in Norway has tripled since 1980 even though their sugar consumption has declined during that same timeframe.

Overweight and obesity in Norway

Most of the adult population is overweight or obese. Among children, the overall proportion of overweight and obesity appears to have stabilised. Since the 1970s, there has been a strong increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity, which is probably related to

www.fhi.no

specific image:

https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/cdcb005cb87a4d58a614e72dc8cce42d/figur-7.png

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

MSN

I dropped this link earlier, but it may have been overlooked or skipped. I think it's important to some of the questions asked. If it's a crap study I'd be interested to hear why if anyone minds critiquing it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is where anecdotes are unhelpful and derail answering the questions posed. It doesn't really help to know that personal experiences suggest a negativity towards sugar. What does help is understanding that the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s and that skyrocketed to over 100 lbs of sugar a year in the early 2000s. Silver lining is, we are down slightly from that peak. THERE is a major reason we have obesity problems. Where is all that sugar coming from? All those foods in boxes and bags and wrappers.

Thanks. Can you please share your link for "the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s"?

I did a quick search and found:

Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes? Health Be Damned! Pour on the Sugar - PMC

Sugar-sweetened drinks have been associated with several health problems. In the point narrative as presented below, we provide our opinion and review of the data to date that we need to reconsider consumption of dietary sugar based on the growing ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In 1776—at the time of the American Revolution—Americans consumed about 4 lbs of sugar per person each year. By 1850, this had risen to 20 lbs, and by 1994, to 120 lbs.

I don't have a link. I learned it in college in a nutrition class. Stat always stuck with me from 3ish years ago.

Thanks. It would be good to have a source. The only one I can find is from Instagram. And people on that instagram post are asking for a source.

The nih.gov link above suggests something quite a bit different.

If accurate, we were consuming 120 pounds of sugar a year per person in 1994. But the obesity rates were "just" 22.5% Link

Recently published trend data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) show the percentage of obese persons has increased from 14.5% in the years 1976-1980 to 22.5% in 1988-1994.<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192036#REF-JOC91119-3" data-tab-toggle=".tab-nav-references">3</a>

Let the research commence then. Seems to be the desired approach of this thread, so have at it. And it would NEVER occur to me to go to instagram for anything like this.

And I want to be clear again. I said very clearly above that this A factor, not THE factor before people start twisting my words like they usually do. FWIW, AI has a fitting summary of our habitual changes to nutrition. It's worth the read. Another large factor is the increase in sedentary lifestyle that has exploded in the last 40 years. Again, AI can provide a pretty decent summary if you choose to research.

Hopefully this is an open source document on PubMed. Good starting point of research if you want to dig in: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6959843/#:~:text=Since these estimations were made,consumption [USDA, 2017].

I caution people using the pages there because the sourcing should matter and people don't dig into those prior to reading the articles/studies/findings. This one seems on the up and up.

Thanks. Can you see if your statement about the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s is accurate?

It would be helpful to know looking at how that has changed over the years.

Did you not read the link I provided?

It's a long study at the link. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6959843/

Could you please quote the part about where the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s? Thank you.

I'm not sure why there's such a fascination with this one particular fact that you're looking to have verified, but here's a link that addresses it.

He has it wrong as the 4 pounds per day was in 1750, not 1950.

But the bigger point still remains that sugar consumption has drastically increased from the 1960s to today which has coincided with the obesity epidemic. The specific number is far less relevant than the percentage increase, which is significant.

And the reason for my comment above..... You asked for a link, weren't too busy to ask if it was in the link after he provided it, but yet too busy to actually look a little.


ETA -- Relevant section:

Change in beverage intake
Sugar intake has increased considerably in the past 40 y (6). The soft drinks that were developed more than a century ago now provide a significant source of energy and added sugars. Sugar intake has shown a remarkable increase since the time of the American Revolution, and sugar-sweetened beverages have been an outlet for this sugar in the 20th century. In 1750, the average American consumed 4 pounds (1.81 kg) of sugar per year. This increased to 20 pounds (9.1 kg) per capita by 1850 and showed a further increase to 120 pounds (54.4 kg) per capita by 1994. By the early 21st century, it exceeded 160 pounds (72.6 kg) per capita. The NHANES found that soft drinks and fruit drinks provided >40% of the “sugars” that are added to the diet (7). Between 1950 and 2000, the consumption of soft drinks had increased from 10 gallons (37.9 L) per person per year to just more than 50 gallons (189.3 L) per person per year (8) (Fig. 1)

Simple enough. This is about gotcha over all else. I apologize for the timeframe in the poundage error. The link I provided (that no one seemed to read) even had it correct and I still botched it. I lumped it in with the gallon stat which I posted above and you confirmed here as being part of the same timeframe (as did my link). Take away? The problem started earlier than I remembered. This is just on ONE source of sugar. We haven't even talked about the foods we eat that have sugar in them.

Sorry but no. Zero about some sort of "gotcha". 100% about getting information correct.

Can you explain to me why you think focus on this error has anything to do with the point?

My man, you referenced something that you learned in college that was actually eye opening. Why is it unreasonable to say "holy schnikes, can I see the data behind that, its eye opening". You then proceeded to provide data that did not substantiate your original data.

Nobody is trying to come out of this and say sugar is not bad, but jeez you can't just drop misinformation and then be like oh why do you care.

I didn't ask why he cared. I know why he cares about the problem. I asked why he thinks this particular data point matters. If it's 400% increase from 1700 or 100% increase since 1950(made up percentages to illustrate the point), the reality is we are sitting at 180 lbs average consumption of sugar a year either way. That's a HUGE impactful number regardless of the history and it's easy to see how/why it impacts current day problems we see, especially when we know it is one facet of many contributing to the problem. It seems to be rather obvious that the tipping point quantity the typical body can process with minimal impact has been hit between the 50s/60s and now., and yet, our consumption continues to grow.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Yeah there's a lot of debate on actual percentages and timeframes taking away from the main point, which is a large sugar increase over time is likely a significant cause of obesity. I don't get why it has to be deeper than that. If someone thinks sugar isn't a big factor then speak up and that discussion can be had. If there are other factors in addition to sugar, we can discuss those too.

 

[djmich]

This is where anecdotes are unhelpful and derail answering the questions posed. It doesn't really help to know that personal experiences suggest a negativity towards sugar. What does help is understanding that the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s and that skyrocketed to over 100 lbs of sugar a year in the early 2000s. Silver lining is, we are down slightly from that peak. THERE is a major reason we have obesity problems. Where is all that sugar coming from? All those foods in boxes and bags and wrappers.

Thanks. Can you please share your link for "the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s"?

I did a quick search and found:

Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes? Health Be Damned! Pour on the Sugar - PMC

Sugar-sweetened drinks have been associated with several health problems. In the point narrative as presented below, we provide our opinion and review of the data to date that we need to reconsider consumption of dietary sugar based on the growing ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In 1776—at the time of the American Revolution—Americans consumed about 4 lbs of sugar per person each year. By 1850, this had risen to 20 lbs, and by 1994, to 120 lbs.

I don't have a link. I learned it in college in a nutrition class. Stat always stuck with me from 3ish years ago.

Thanks. It would be good to have a source. The only one I can find is from Instagram. And people on that instagram post are asking for a source.

The nih.gov link above suggests something quite a bit different.

If accurate, we were consuming 120 pounds of sugar a year per person in 1994. But the obesity rates were "just" 22.5% Link

Recently published trend data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) show the percentage of obese persons has increased from 14.5% in the years 1976-1980 to 22.5% in 1988-1994.<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192036#REF-JOC91119-3" data-tab-toggle=".tab-nav-references">3</a>

Let the research commence then. Seems to be the desired approach of this thread, so have at it. And it would NEVER occur to me to go to instagram for anything like this.

And I want to be clear again. I said very clearly above that this A factor, not THE factor before people start twisting my words like they usually do. FWIW, AI has a fitting summary of our habitual changes to nutrition. It's worth the read. Another large factor is the increase in sedentary lifestyle that has exploded in the last 40 years. Again, AI can provide a pretty decent summary if you choose to research.

Hopefully this is an open source document on PubMed. Good starting point of research if you want to dig in: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6959843/#:~:text=Since these estimations were made,consumption [USDA, 2017].

I caution people using the pages there because the sourcing should matter and people don't dig into those prior to reading the articles/studies/findings. This one seems on the up and up.

Thanks. Can you see if your statement about the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s is accurate?

It would be helpful to know looking at how that has changed over the years.

Did you not read the link I provided?

It's a long study at the link. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6959843/

Could you please quote the part about where the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s? Thank you.

I'm not sure why there's such a fascination with this one particular fact that you're looking to have verified, but here's a link that addresses it.

He has it wrong as the 4 pounds per day was in 1750, not 1950.

But the bigger point still remains that sugar consumption has drastically increased from the 1960s to today which has coincided with the obesity epidemic. The specific number is far less relevant than the percentage increase, which is significant.

And the reason for my comment above..... You asked for a link, weren't too busy to ask if it was in the link after he provided it, but yet too busy to actually look a little.


ETA -- Relevant section:

Change in beverage intake
Sugar intake has increased considerably in the past 40 y (6). The soft drinks that were developed more than a century ago now provide a significant source of energy and added sugars. Sugar intake has shown a remarkable increase since the time of the American Revolution, and sugar-sweetened beverages have been an outlet for this sugar in the 20th century. In 1750, the average American consumed 4 pounds (1.81 kg) of sugar per year. This increased to 20 pounds (9.1 kg) per capita by 1850 and showed a further increase to 120 pounds (54.4 kg) per capita by 1994. By the early 21st century, it exceeded 160 pounds (72.6 kg) per capita. The NHANES found that soft drinks and fruit drinks provided >40% of the “sugars” that are added to the diet (7). Between 1950 and 2000, the consumption of soft drinks had increased from 10 gallons (37.9 L) per person per year to just more than 50 gallons (189.3 L) per person per year (8) (Fig. 1)

Simple enough. This is about gotcha over all else. I apologize for the timeframe in the poundage error. The link I provided (that no one seemed to read) even had it correct and I still botched it. I lumped it in with the gallon stat which I posted above and you confirmed here as being part of the same timeframe (as did my link). Take away? The problem started earlier than I remembered. This is just on ONE source of sugar. We haven't even talked about the foods we eat that have sugar in them.

Sorry but no. Zero about some sort of "gotcha". 100% about getting information correct.

Can you explain to me why you think focus on this error has anything to do with the point?

My man, you referenced something that you learned in college that was actually eye opening. Why is it unreasonable to say "holy schnikes, can I see the data behind that, its eye opening". You then proceeded to provide data that did not substantiate your original data.

Nobody is trying to come out of this and say sugar is not bad, but jeez you can't just drop misinformation and then be like oh why do you care.

I didn't ask why he cared. I know why he cares about the problem. I asked why he thinks this particular data point matters. If it's 400% increase from 1700 or 100% increase since 1950(made up percentages to illustrate the point), the reality is we are sitting at 180 lbs average consumption of sugar a year either way. That's a HUGE impactful number regardless of the history and it's easy to see how/why it impacts current day problems we see, especially when we know it is one facet of many contributing to the problem. It seems to be rather obvious that the tipping point quantity the typical body can process with minimal impact has been hit between the 50s/60s and now., and yet, our consumption continues to grow.

Because data and relative size matters, and conceptually a 100% increase would seem to be an easier solve than a 400% increase. Data and relative size can matter in terms of the solve and the magnitude of solve...while still affirming the underlying issue (which Joe is doing).

If we were talking budget deficit and the difference was trying to retreat from a 400% increase in annual deficit vs a 100% increase...one seems exponentially more insurmountable than the other.

This is the do your own research thread...seems kinda obvious we'd attract a crowd that was generally more curious about data and sourcing.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is where anecdotes are unhelpful and derail answering the questions posed. It doesn't really help to know that personal experiences suggest a negativity towards sugar. What does help is understanding that the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s and that skyrocketed to over 100 lbs of sugar a year in the early 2000s. Silver lining is, we are down slightly from that peak. THERE is a major reason we have obesity problems. Where is all that sugar coming from? All those foods in boxes and bags and wrappers.

Thanks. Can you please share your link for "the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s"?

I did a quick search and found:

Dietary Sugar and Body Weight: Have We Reached a Crisis in the Epidemic of Obesity and Diabetes? Health Be Damned! Pour on the Sugar - PMC

Sugar-sweetened drinks have been associated with several health problems. In the point narrative as presented below, we provide our opinion and review of the data to date that we need to reconsider consumption of dietary sugar based on the growing ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In 1776—at the time of the American Revolution—Americans consumed about 4 lbs of sugar per person each year. By 1850, this had risen to 20 lbs, and by 1994, to 120 lbs.

I don't have a link. I learned it in college in a nutrition class. Stat always stuck with me from 3ish years ago.

Thanks. It would be good to have a source. The only one I can find is from Instagram. And people on that instagram post are asking for a source.

The nih.gov link above suggests something quite a bit different.

If accurate, we were consuming 120 pounds of sugar a year per person in 1994. But the obesity rates were "just" 22.5% Link

Recently published trend data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) show the percentage of obese persons has increased from 14.5% in the years 1976-1980 to 22.5% in 1988-1994.<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192036#REF-JOC91119-3" data-tab-toggle=".tab-nav-references">3</a>

Let the research commence then. Seems to be the desired approach of this thread, so have at it. And it would NEVER occur to me to go to instagram for anything like this.

And I want to be clear again. I said very clearly above that this A factor, not THE factor before people start twisting my words like they usually do. FWIW, AI has a fitting summary of our habitual changes to nutrition. It's worth the read. Another large factor is the increase in sedentary lifestyle that has exploded in the last 40 years. Again, AI can provide a pretty decent summary if you choose to research.

Hopefully this is an open source document on PubMed. Good starting point of research if you want to dig in: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6959843/#:~:text=Since these estimations were made,consumption [USDA, 2017].

I caution people using the pages there because the sourcing should matter and people don't dig into those prior to reading the articles/studies/findings. This one seems on the up and up.

Thanks. Can you see if your statement about the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s is accurate?

It would be helpful to know looking at how that has changed over the years.

Did you not read the link I provided?

It's a long study at the link. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6959843/

Could you please quote the part about where the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s? Thank you.

I'm not sure why there's such a fascination with this one particular fact that you're looking to have verified, but here's a link that addresses it.

He has it wrong as the 4 pounds per day was in 1750, not 1950.

But the bigger point still remains that sugar consumption has drastically increased from the 1960s to today which has coincided with the obesity epidemic. The specific number is far less relevant than the percentage increase, which is significant.

And the reason for my comment above..... You asked for a link, weren't too busy to ask if it was in the link after he provided it, but yet too busy to actually look a little.


ETA -- Relevant section:

Change in beverage intake
Sugar intake has increased considerably in the past 40 y (6). The soft drinks that were developed more than a century ago now provide a significant source of energy and added sugars. Sugar intake has shown a remarkable increase since the time of the American Revolution, and sugar-sweetened beverages have been an outlet for this sugar in the 20th century. In 1750, the average American consumed 4 pounds (1.81 kg) of sugar per year. This increased to 20 pounds (9.1 kg) per capita by 1850 and showed a further increase to 120 pounds (54.4 kg) per capita by 1994. By the early 21st century, it exceeded 160 pounds (72.6 kg) per capita. The NHANES found that soft drinks and fruit drinks provided >40% of the “sugars” that are added to the diet (7). Between 1950 and 2000, the consumption of soft drinks had increased from 10 gallons (37.9 L) per person per year to just more than 50 gallons (189.3 L) per person per year (8) (Fig. 1)

Simple enough. This is about gotcha over all else. I apologize for the timeframe in the poundage error. The link I provided (that no one seemed to read) even had it correct and I still botched it. I lumped it in with the gallon stat which I posted above and you confirmed here as being part of the same timeframe (as did my link). Take away? The problem started earlier than I remembered. This is just on ONE source of sugar. We haven't even talked about the foods we eat that have sugar in them.

Sorry but no. Zero about some sort of "gotcha". 100% about getting information correct.

Can you explain to me why you think focus on this error has anything to do with the point?

My man, you referenced something that you learned in college that was actually eye opening. Why is it unreasonable to say "holy schnikes, can I see the data behind that, its eye opening". You then proceeded to provide data that did not substantiate your original data.

Nobody is trying to come out of this and say sugar is not bad, but jeez you can't just drop misinformation and then be like oh why do you care.

I didn't ask why he cared. I know why he cares about the problem. I asked why he thinks this particular data point matters. If it's 400% increase from 1700 or 100% increase since 1950(made up percentages to illustrate the point), the reality is we are sitting at 180 lbs average consumption of sugar a year either way. That's a HUGE impactful number regardless of the history and it's easy to see how/why it impacts current day problems we see, especially when we know it is one facet of many contributing to the problem. It seems to be rather obvious that the tipping point quantity the typical body can process with minimal impact has been hit between the 50s/60s and now., and yet, our consumption continues to grow.

Because data and relative size matters, and conceptually a 100% increase would seem to be an easier solve than a 400% increase. Data and relative size can matter in terms of the solve and the magnitude of solve...while still affirming the underlying issue (which Joe is doing).

If we were talking budget deficit and the difference was trying to retreat from a 400% increase in annual deficit vs a 100% increase...one seems exponentially more insurmountable than the other.

This is the do your own research thread...seems kinda obvious we'd attract a crowd that was generally more curious about data and sourcing.

How, in this case? Conceptually, I agree. Pragmatically it seems as significant as knowing if the shooter in a murder had killed anyone before when we have the gun, the bullet, the fingerprints on the gun and the accused shooter's fingerprints along with a signed letter of confession.

The problem in front of us is 180 lbs of sugar consumption per person. What it feels like because we compare it to something from another point in history seems irrelevant when talking about solutions on how to get out of the mess.

This is the do your own research thread where people want to be spoon fed. Doesn't really compute for me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Another significant problem here (two sides of same coin) is the sedentary lifestyles we live along with technology advances throughout almost all aspects of our lives. Those are my three tent poles. My OPINION....no links.

 

[bigbottom]

Another significant problem here (two sides of same coin) is the sedentary lifestyles we live along with technology advances throughout almost all aspects of our lives. Those are my three tent poles. My OPINION....no links.

Check out the link above from @The Longtime Lurker to a study that suggests otherwise. Very interesting.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I googled 2 countries which I don't think have obesity problems, japan and norway. I used the search string "norway(or japan) sugar consumption per capita by year"

Japan's sugar intake has been on general decline since 1972!

Sugar Consumption Per Capita in Japan

We like numbers. We collect them, analyse them and look for stories they might be hiding... We aim to put useful data and interesting reports under a single roof to save you hours of searching and disappointment at poor results. We want to be able to offer our products to a wide...

www.helgilibrary.com

Norway is at lowest sugar intake in last 44 years, or at least they were 5 years ago, which is probably good enough for this discussion.

Sweet spot: Norwegians cut sugar intake to lowest level in 44 years

Norway has had a sugar tax since 1922 and more recently has created separate taxes for confectionary and sugary drinks

www.theguardian.com

I am quoting my post to argue with myself. I was wrong, i dont think it is caused by sugar.Norway the sugar has gone down, however their obesity rate has gone up a very significant amount.

The number of obese people in Norway has tripled since 1980 even though their sugar consumption has declined during that same timeframe.

Overweight and obesity in Norway

Most of the adult population is overweight or obese. Among children, the overall proportion of overweight and obesity appears to have stabilised. Since the 1970s, there has been a strong increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity, which is probably related to

www.fhi.no

specific image:

https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/cdcb005cb87a4d58a614e72dc8cce42d/figur-7.png

Obesity is increasing nearly everywhere the standard American diet has been introduced (even Japan). Added sugar is a part of the problem, no doubt, but it's not the only issue with ultraprocessed foods, nor is it the sole cause of the obesity pandemic. This article explores some other possible contributors, besides the “big two” - changes in diet and physical activity.

The obesity epidemic is a global issue and shows no signs of abating, while the cause of this epidemic remains unclear. Marketing practices of energy-dense foods and institutionally-driven declines in physical activity are the alleged perpetrators for the epidemic, despite a lack of solid evidence to demonstrate their causal role. While both may contribute to obesity, we call attention to their unquestioned dominance in program funding and public efforts to reduce obesity, and propose several alternative putative contributors that would benefit from equal consideration and attention. Evidence for microorganisms, epigenetics, increasing maternal age, greater fecundity among people with higher adiposity, assortative mating, sleep debt, endocrine disruptors, pharmaceutical iatrogenesis, reduction in variability of ambient temperatures, and intrauterine and intergenerational effects, as contributing factors to the obesity epidemic are reviewed herein.

As I said before, many healthcare issues ate multifactorial. Obesity isn’t just a lack of willpower, and added sugar isn’t the only culprit either. But our brains like to form mental shortcuts, and oversimplify complex problems.

This tendency, along with confirmation bias, are additional pitfalls one might encounter in their “research.” And we’re all prone to making such errors, including healthcare providers. So it’s important to keep an open mind, and realize science is constantly evolving.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Another significant problem here (two sides of same coin) is the sedentary lifestyles we live along with technology advances throughout almost all aspects of our lives. Those are my three tent poles. My OPINION....no links.

Check out the link above from @The Longtime Lurker to a study that suggests otherwise. Very interesting.

Did I miss the link to the study? I see the MSN article.

There is a growing theory around the foods we eat. More importantly, what foods we eat when and its all predicated on the type of fat we are housing and the metabolic state/cycle the body is in. It wouldn't shock me at all if there is something .meaningful that comes from work like this.

ETA: yes, I missed it. Gonna read when I have time. Thanks!

 

[MAC_32]

No matter the tangent we’re on, these last few pages nicely illustrate the problems with DIY “research”: bias, unreliable sources, and inadequate effort reviewing the data, assuming one has the ability to understand it at all. On top of that, most health issues are multifactorial, such that they rarely distill to simple, definitive explanations/interventions.

Now imagine having scientific background, up to date clinical knowledge, and limited time. How would you prioritize entertaining these discussions?

From a general sense, I wouldn't. Minimize consuming processed anything, manage stress, exercise regularly, engage your mind on something new, get plenty of rest - both actual sleep and down time, and earn a liveable wage. Application to each individual isn't as simple as that one sentence, but the starting point is. I don't see the point arguing what's the optimal mix of all that, good health is not a one-size-fits-all, but this is the internet after all- you all do you.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

which was legal when there was a shortage but now is not.

Are you sure about this? I feel like there's still loopholes that allow this. I know locally we have a wellness clinic that offers them and also a compounding pharmacy that is still offering them.

This is a good explanation: https://www.hchlawyers.com/blog/2025/june/glp-1-shortage-ended-can-you-still-legally-presc/

Anything that is “essentially a copy” is illegal. If it’s not “essentially a copy,” is it really a GLP-1?

Following up on this, Novo Nordisk issued a press release today in which they announced they expect slower -- but still very healthy -- growth in revenue and profit for the second half of this year in part because compounding, though now illegal, is still happening.

The lowered sales outlook for 2025 is driven by lower growth expectations for the second half of 2025. This is related to lower growth expectations for Wegovy® in the US obesity market, lower growth expectations for Ozempic® in the US GLP-1 diabetes market, as well as lower-than-expected penetration for Wegovy® in select IO markets.

For Wegovy® in the US, the sales outlook reflects the persistent use of compounded GLP-1s, slower-than-expected market expansion and competition.

Despite the expiry of the FDA grace period for mass compounding on 22 May 2025, Novo Nordisk market research shows that unsafe and unlawful mass compounding has continued, and that multiple entities continue to market and sell compounded GLP-1s under the false guise of ‘personalisation’. Novo Nordisk is pursuing multiple strategies, including litigation, to protect patients from knockoff ‘semaglutide’ drugs. Novo Nordisk is deeply concerned that, without aggressive intervention by federal and state regulators and law enforcement, patients will continue to be exposed to the significant risks posed by knockoff ‘semaglutide’ drugs made with illicit or inauthentic foreign active pharmaceutical ingredients.

As unsafe and unlawful mass compounding continues, the Wegovy® penetration within the cash channel has been lower-than-expected. Within this channel, NovoCare® Pharmacy was launched in March 2025. Wegovy® prescriptions via NovoCare® Pharmacy (including TeleHealth collaborations) amount to around 11,000 total weekly prescriptions, in addition to around 20,000 weekly prescriptions in the retail cash channel. Novo Nordisk will continue to invest in the expansion of direct-to-patient initiatives such as NovoCare® Pharmacy and further collaborations with telehealth organisations.

Within the insured channel, despite the initiation of new commercial activities of Wegovy® in the first half of 2025, the sales outlook also reflects lower-than-expected penetration for Wegovy®, mainly due to slower market expansion and competition. Novo Nordisk continues to engage in additional commercial initiatives and expects a regulatory decision around the Wegovy® MASH indication during the second half of 2025. Moreover, Novo Nordisk continues to expect a positive contribution from changes to the CVS national template formulary effective 1 July 2025, where Wegovy® is now the only GLP-1 medicine covered for obesity.

For Ozempic®, the updated outlook is negatively impacted by competition in the US. Novo Nordisk continues to invest in commercial activities and label updates towards driving further market penetration of Ozempic®.

Finally, while IO Wegovy® sales are growing at high rates and launches are progressing, the sales outlook reflects lower-than-expected penetration for Wegovy® in select IO markets due to slower market expansion and competition. With around 1 billion people living with obesity globally and only a few million on treatment, the outlook reflects a continued global rollout of Wegovy® to more markets.

Novo Nordisk lowers sales and operating profit outlook for 2025

Bagsværd, Denmark, 29 July 2025 – Novo Nordisk today announced sales and operating profit growth at constant exchange rates (CER) for the first six months...

www.globenewswire.com

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Thanks for the follow up. I felt like i was missing something. We have friends that are getting this stuff from wellness clinics at a fraction of the price because their insurance won't cover it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Stumbled across a Dr. Mike / Dr Idz reel that begins to address the "organic" stuff talked about earlier in this thread. This seems to be the format this forum likes most when "researching" their topics. However, I recommend following up and reading the studies cited in the reel too.

Enjoy

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Stumbled across a Dr. Mike / Dr Idz reel that begins to address the "organic" stuff talked about earlier in this thread. This seems to be the format this forum likes most when "researching" their topics. However, I recommend following up and reading the studies cited in the reel too.

Enjoy

Do you consider soil health important when discussing organic vs non organic? A large monocrop relying on large quantities of fertilizer ("natural" or chemical) to amnend and correct soil inadequacies year after year compared to a diverse crop relying on rotations, cover crops, ect even if fertilized and with herbicides/pesticides. Are these also factored in when discussing organic because the techniques to grow food beyond just what chemicals are used is also important? Perhaps the government doesn't require that and as always it's on the consumer to verify what they're putting into their bodies. It is good that people are seeing that nothing can be taken at face value though and a little "research" is needed when making choices.

I don't have Instagram so i didn't see any links to the studies, but I was able watch the clip.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Stumbled across a Dr. Mike / Dr Idz reel that begins to address the "organic" stuff talked about earlier in this thread. This seems to be the format this forum likes most when "researching" their topics. However, I recommend following up and reading the studies cited in the reel too.

Enjoy

Do you consider soil health important when discussing organic vs non organic? A large monocrop relying on large quantities of fertilizer ("natural" or chemical) to amnend and correct soil inadequacies year after year compared to a diverse crop relying on rotations, cover crops, ect even if fertilized and with herbicides/pesticides. Are these also factored in when discussing organic because the techniques to grow food beyond just what chemicals are used is also important? Perhaps the government doesn't require that and as always it's on the consumer to verify what they're putting into their bodies. It is good that people are seeing that nothing can be taken at face value though and a little "research" is needed when making choices.

I don't have Instagram so i didn't see any links to the studies, but I was able watch the clip.

Unless I'm not understanding this conversation, which is possible, is it really feasible for consumers to put that much effort into digging down to such a level in order to eat "healthier"? How much difference in my quality and quantity of life will be achieved if I eat just regular carrots and broccoli right off the store shelf even if not labeled organic vs calculating exposure to natural fertilizer and whether or not crops are rotated ? At least I'm not eating canned green beans anymore, mostly cuz they're nasty.

 

[gianmarco]

Pay attention to THIS kind of stuff. Evidence based and not trying to sell you anything.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Stumbled across a Dr. Mike / Dr Idz reel that begins to address the "organic" stuff talked about earlier in this thread. This seems to be the format this forum likes most when "researching" their topics. However, I recommend following up and reading the studies cited in the reel too.

Enjoy

Do you consider soil health important when discussing organic vs non organic? A large monocrop relying on large quantities of fertilizer ("natural" or chemical) to amnend and correct soil inadequacies year after year compared to a diverse crop relying on rotations, cover crops, ect even if fertilized and with herbicides/pesticides. Are these also factored in when discussing organic because the techniques to grow food beyond just what chemicals are used is also important? Perhaps the government doesn't require that and as always it's on the consumer to verify what they're putting into their bodies. It is good that people are seeing that nothing can be taken at face value though and a little "research" is needed when making choices.

I don't have Instagram so i didn't see any links to the studies, but I was able watch the clip.

That's not a major factor in what is labeled "organic" vs not in government regulations, so for purposes of that discussion, no, I don't. I am absolutely on board with the decades and decades of science that say we do ourselves no favors by having a single crop on a plot of land year after year after year. It's important but a wholly different topic in my view.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Are organics more nutritious than conventional foods? A comprehensive systematic review - PubMed

The growing consumer interest fueled by the belief in the superiority of organic foods raises questions about their actual nutritional superiority over conventional ones. This assumption remains a controversial issue. The present study addresses scientific evidence to clarify this controversy...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Stumbled across a Dr. Mike / Dr Idz reel that begins to address the "organic" stuff talked about earlier in this thread. This seems to be the format this forum likes most when "researching" their topics. However, I recommend following up and reading the studies cited in the reel too.

Enjoy

Do you consider soil health important when discussing organic vs non organic? A large monocrop relying on large quantities of fertilizer ("natural" or chemical) to amnend and correct soil inadequacies year after year compared to a diverse crop relying on rotations, cover crops, ect even if fertilized and with herbicides/pesticides. Are these also factored in when discussing organic because the techniques to grow food beyond just what chemicals are used is also important? Perhaps the government doesn't require that and as always it's on the consumer to verify what they're putting into their bodies. It is good that people are seeing that nothing can be taken at face value though and a little "research" is needed when making choices.

I don't have Instagram so i didn't see any links to the studies, but I was able watch the clip.

Unless I'm not understanding this conversation, which is possible, is it really feasible for consumers to put that much effort into digging down to such a level in order to eat "healthier"? How much difference in my quality and quantity of life will be achieved if I eat just regular carrots and broccoli right off the store shelf even if not labeled organic vs calculating exposure to natural fertilizer and whether or not crops are rotated ? At least I'm not eating canned green beans anymore, mostly cuz they're nasty.

100%. Do your best and really what more can be expected.

Maybe I'm getting further into the weeds with organic vs non organic than just what chemicals are or aren't put on it. My point was the organic debate isn't just about that and that the soil food is grown in matters, a lot. I agree though, the average person isn't going to spend a lot of time worrying about what that means for the quality of their food.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Stumbled across a Dr. Mike / Dr Idz reel that begins to address the "organic" stuff talked about earlier in this thread. This seems to be the format this forum likes most when "researching" their topics. However, I recommend following up and reading the studies cited in the reel too.

Enjoy

Do you consider soil health important when discussing organic vs non organic? A large monocrop relying on large quantities of fertilizer ("natural" or chemical) to amnend and correct soil inadequacies year after year compared to a diverse crop relying on rotations, cover crops, ect even if fertilized and with herbicides/pesticides. Are these also factored in when discussing organic because the techniques to grow food beyond just what chemicals are used is also important? Perhaps the government doesn't require that and as always it's on the consumer to verify what they're putting into their bodies. It is good that people are seeing that nothing can be taken at face value though and a little "research" is needed when making choices.

I don't have Instagram so i didn't see any links to the studies, but I was able watch the clip.

That's not a major factor in what is labeled "organic" vs not in government regulations, so for purposes of that discussion, no, I don't. I am absolutely on board with the decades and decades of science that say we do ourselves no favors by having a single crop on a plot of land year after year after year. It's important but a wholly different topic in my view.

Ok thanks, i truly didn't know if techniques were in government guidelines for organic. If not then it would require an understanding of why that's important and also where to get it. It's very important for a variety of reasons, but you're likely right it's for a different topic and not something the average person is thinking about.

As you're well aware, it's complicated as to why that matters and is probably just as important ecologically and nutritionally at this stage.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I do want to point out that government guidelines might be irrelevant, but food grown in healthy soil (organic, really organic not a government definition) is absolutely better for you. The "organic" foods that are labeled as such for marketing only might not, but there is a distinction between the two. So when i see people claiming there's no difference or that organic is possibly worse it's not quite that simple. People that really want to eat the healthiest foods they can shouldn't feel like that doesn't exist, or it's all the same.

It's worthwhile to point out that there's a lot of misdirection when something is labeled healthy or organic, but it's certainly not the only options available. For me it's worthwhile knowing not only what's put into my food but also how it's grown. Good farming practices (organic, really organic and not a government definition) are beneficial for more than just nutrition, excess runoff from fertilizers/pesticides/animal waste find their way into the water table from our industrial farming techniques due to poor soil's inability to filter and hold excess water for example. There's advantages to seeking these options beyond just the individual. Different topic, but since i brought it up there's an example.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

do want to point out that government guidelines might be irrelevant, but food grown in healthy soil (organic, really organic not a government definition) is absolutely better for you

Also true of non-organic

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

do want to point out that government guidelines might be irrelevant, but food grown in healthy soil (organic, really organic not a government definition) is absolutely better for you

Also true of non-organic

A large monocrop relying on large quantities of fertilizer ("natural" or chemical) to amnend and correct soil inadequacies year after year compared to a diverse crop relying on rotations, cover crops, ect even if fertilized and with herbicides/pesticides

Agree to a point. That's what i was touching on in the quoted and i think that's what you're saying aswell?

Industrial fertilizers are pretty good at adding N, P, and K. Crop rotations typically enhance N (legumes fix their own nitrogen adding it back to the soil so you'll typically see a bean/corn rotation or the like). There's more to healthy plants than just N, P, and K though and even non organic will benifit from healthy soil no matter what label we choose to give it.

It was touched on in this thread earlier i believe, but we've bred a lot of the nutrition out of our food in favor of yield and durability, but soil quality also factors in and both organic and non organic will benefit from proper farming techniques.

I'm well aware the average person will spend zero time on any of this, but there does seem to be a large movement of people looking for exactly these kinds of things and rightfully so imo.

 

[urbanhack]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

This was really good.

 

[djmich]

Since the Covid thread was locked....

Long Covid and healthcare workers

I’m guessing the thread was locked because it got political…why continue it in a thread that is not about long covid, other than to probably get this one locked as well.