Obesity and Ozempic and more (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

This is primarily due those that adopt diet and exercise don't fully adjust their lifestyle for the long term.

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions.

 

[matttyl]

Meanwhile, we know obesity is pretty bad, and diet/exercise seldom accomplish long term weight loss

Wait, what?

Diet and exercise don't work?

Not sure if this is sarcastic, but unfortunately, diet and exercise seldom succeed in real world conditions.

This is primarily due those that adopt diet and exercise don't fully adjust their lifestyle for the long term. They get to their desired goal and go back to the bad habits I am assuming, resulting in the viscous cycle of weight gain/loss....

Which means that diet and exercise do in fact work. It just works for the period of time you’re doing them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it

Do you have thoughts on:

1. Why it seems that 50 years ago, lots of people were able to not be obese?
2. Why today in countries like Japan, 96% of the population is able not to be obese?

 

[massraider]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

 

[Mister CIA]

this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it

Do you have thoughts on:

1. Why it seems that 50 years ago, lots of people were able to not be obese?
2. Why today in countries like Japan, 96% of the population is able not to be obese?

My guesses:

1. Eating crap food
2. Sedentary lifestyle (sitting at a desk all day)
3. Maybe social stigma had an effect to (or lack thereof)
4. A headstart on obesity. Sedentary kids vs free-range kids.
5. Marketing.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Anyone know how tall Hari is? I’m checking him out and it seems he was just over 200# at his heaviest. The way he throws around how obese he was, I expecting 300+ pounds.

Weighing 2 bills, he’d be obese at 5’ 9”

Yea, I actually figured that out on my own. that’s based on BMI, correct? I just incorrectly assumed the dude was really fat. I don’t love what BMI says, because it says I’m overweight. I’m at 26.5. Eat pretty well and exercise vigorously 3-4 times a week. I’ve got abs bro BMI wants me to lose 15 pounds. 15! I’ve never had a dr say a word about my weight. I’m in shape. I probably carry 5-10#s of fat. Losing that would put me in the 170s. Which I haven’t been in for 25-30 years. Maybe when my knee chills out, I’ll see if I can get into the 170s. I can’t imagine taking drugs for the rest of my life to lose and maintain a 15# weight loss. But this thread has made me think about what I could change. I’m going to drastically cut sugar and see what happens.

 

[Doug B]

this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it

Do you have thoughts on:

1. Why it seems that 50 years ago, lots of people were able to not be obese?
2. Why today in countries like Japan, 96% of the population is able not to be obese?

Yes. In both cases, people didn't/don't commonly have to explicitly keep their weight in check. The overall socio-cultural conditions were different (and are different in the case of modern Japan).

To me, it's a lot like the difference in water-borne illness in the 18th-century pre-industrial world versus today in the developed world. No one today in the U.S. has to explicitly work to ensure that their water is free of cholera, typhoid, polio, etc. (generally - I know there are exceptions). Cumulative innovations in water treatment have yielded, in modern times, a socio-cultural condition in which people in the Western World generally don't have to think about water-borne disease or account for that particular risk.

To me, this analogy holds up:

Socio-cultural conditions that promote water-borne disease ---> People commonly boil several gallons of water every morning, boil bathwater once a week, routinely seek and dig their own fresh-water sources, etc.

::

Socio-cultural conditions that promote obesity ---> People must explicitly fit exercise into their daily routines, have to consider the contents of the food they buy, have to attempt to break their innate reward systems and keep them broken, etc.

 

[beer 30]

this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it

Do you have thoughts on:

1. Why it seems that 50 years ago, lots of people were able to not be obese?
2. Why today in countries like Japan, 96% of the population is able not to be obese?

1. Cocaine in the US, hard work and diet elsewhere
2. See #1, they work stupid hours and eat rice & fish

Ok, the cocaine thing is a joke but it was 1974 and it was starting to rip through the US as the drug of choice. I really think our diet and what goes into our foods is a major contributor to the issues we are seeing. I challenge anyone to try to kick your sugar addiction. It's in almost everything and trying to find stuff it isn't in is near to impossible unless you are just eating whole foods. Almost anything processed has some form of sugar in it and if it doesn't then chances are we either adding it (or salt).

 

[Doug B]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

In other places, they're not explicitly trying, day to day, to maintain a healthy weight. Generally.

 

[Doug B]

Sedentary lifestyle (sitting at a desk all day)

For this particular one, I think Japan has plenty of office drones that work long hours.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it

Do you have thoughts on:

1. Why it seems that 50 years ago, lots of people were able to not be obese?
2. Why today in countries like Japan, 96% of the population is able not to be obese?

This goes back to my water is wet comment. The way food is made/sold/marketed is different. We’re old enough that we remember the microwave being introduced. Remember the hungry man ads? We went from cooking with fresh ingredients, for the most part, to cooking prepacked crap laden with preservatives, sugar, salt, all the wrong oils and HFCS.

Take popcorn. Extra buttery microwave popcorn. Really not good for you. Loaded with trans fats and other chemicals. If you Cook the popcorn your self you control what goes in it. That’s an easy 3-4 hundred calorie difference and no chemicals/transfats. Hell, you could cook it in bacon fat and it will be healthier for you.

Occam’s razor.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

unfortunately, diet and exercise seldom succeed in real world conditions.

Not sure if you see patients, but if you do see patients, do you tell them this?

The drs that I have had over the years, as old man stuff starts to show itself, have always supported my efforts to do things without daily meds. But I can tell they are skeptical of my abilities to actually do it. They without fail offer the pharma route and all state that it is more successful statistically. So far, so good. No daily meds

 

[Doug B]

... condescendingly telling them it "reflects fundamental deficiencies in math and estimating risk."

It's not condescension. Difficulty in accurately estimating most kinds of non-fight-or-flight risk -- regardless of available information -- is innate to humans. There's no implicit negative value judgment in pointing this out.

Risk Perception: It’s Personal (Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct 2014)​

Risk perception is a highly personal process of decision making, based on an individual’s frame of reference developed over a lifetime, among many other factors. A body of research from the past several decades makes it clear that when it come to making decisions about health and safety, we don’t always worry the most about the most pressing threats. Risk consultant David Ropeik calls this the “risk perception gap.”

On the surface, this risk perception gap may appear to be a result of ignorance. However, experts including Ropeik, University of Oregon psychologist Paul Slovic, and many more say that, in fact, it’s a natural extension of our hard-wired ability to quickly size up threats, an ability that draws on much more than facts alone. “The older view is that the public is emotional and hence irrational,” Slovic says. “But that’s not correct. Emotions are an extraordinarily sophisticated form of intelligence,” he says, “born out of millennia of quickly assessing high risks.”

Why the Human Brain Is a Poor Judge of Risk

The human brain is a fascinating organ, but it's an absolute mess. Because it has evolved over millions of years, there are all sorts of processes jumbled together rather than logically organized. Some of the processes are optimized for only certain kinds of situations, while others don't work...

www.wired.com

THE HUMAN BRAIN is a fascinating organ, but it's an absolute mess. Because it has evolved over millions of years, there are all sorts of processes jumbled together rather than logically organized. Some of the processes are optimized for only certain kinds of situations, while others don't work as well as they could. There's some duplication of effort, and even some conflicting brain processes.

Assessing and reacting to risk is one of the most important things a living creature has to deal with, and there's a very primitive part of the brain that has that job. It's the amygdala, and it sits right above the brainstem, in what's called the medial temporal lobe. The amygdala is responsible for processing base emotions that come from sensory inputs, like anger, avoidance, defensiveness and fear. It's an old part of the brain, and seems to have originated in early fishes.

...

We humans have a completely different [and additonal - db] pathway to cope with analyzing risk. It's the neocortex, a more advanced part of the brain that developed very recently, evolutionarily speaking, and only appears in mammals. It's intelligent and analytic. It can reason. It can make more nuanced trade-offs. It's also much slower.

So here's the first fundamental problem: We have two systems for reacting to risk -- a primitive intuitive system and a more advanced analytic system -- and they're operating in parallel. It's hard for the neocortex to contradict the amygdala.

...

And it's not just risks. People are not computers. We don't evaluate security trade-offs mathematically, by examining the relative probabilities of different events. Instead, we have shortcuts, rules of thumb, stereotypes and biases -- generally known as "heuristics." These heuristics affect how we think about risks, how we evaluate the probability of future events, how we consider costs, and how we make trade-offs. We have ways of generating close-to-optimal answers quickly with limited cognitive capabilities. Don Norman's wonderful essay, Being Analog, provides a great background for all this.

Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for some of this work, talks (.pdf) about humans having two separate cognitive systems, one that intuits and one that reasons:

The operations of System 1 are typically fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit (not available to introspection) and often emotionally charged; they are also governed by habit and therefore difficult to control or modify. The operations of System 2 are slower, serial, effortful, more likely to be consciously monitored and deliberately controlled; they are also relatively flexible and potentially rule governed.​

When you examine the brain heuristics about risk, security and trade-offs, you can find evolutionary reasons for why they exist. And most of them are still very useful. The problem is that they can fail us, especially in the context of a modern society. Our social and technological evolution has vastly outpaced our evolution as a species, and our brains are stuck with heuristics that are better suited to living in primitive and small family groups.

 

[3C's]

... condescendingly telling them it "reflects fundamental deficiencies in math and estimating risk."

It's not condescension. Difficulty in accurately estimating most kinds of non-fight-or-flight risk -- regardless of available information -- is innate to humans. There's no implicit negative value judgment in pointing this out.

Risk Perception: It’s Personal (Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct 2014)​

Risk perception is a highly personal process of decision making, based on an individual’s frame of reference developed over a lifetime, among many other factors. A body of research from the past several decades makes it clear that when it come to making decisions about health and safety, we don’t always worry the most about the most pressing threats. Risk consultant David Ropeik calls this the “risk perception gap.”

On the surface, this risk perception gap may appear to be a result of ignorance. However, experts including Ropeik, University of Oregon psychologist Paul Slovic, and many more say that, in fact, it’s a natural extension of our hard-wired ability to quickly size up threats, an ability that draws on much more than facts alone. “The older view is that the public is emotional and hence irrational,” Slovic says. “But that’s not correct. Emotions are an extraordinarily sophisticated form of intelligence,” he says, “born out of millennia of quickly assessing high risks.”

Why the Human Brain Is a Poor Judge of Risk

The human brain is a fascinating organ, but it's an absolute mess. Because it has evolved over millions of years, there are all sorts of processes jumbled together rather than logically organized. Some of the processes are optimized for only certain kinds of situations, while others don't work...

www.wired.com

THE HUMAN BRAIN is a fascinating organ, but it's an absolute mess. Because it has evolved over millions of years, there are all sorts of processes jumbled together rather than logically organized. Some of the processes are optimized for only certain kinds of situations, while others don't work as well as they could. There's some duplication of effort, and even some conflicting brain processes.

Assessing and reacting to risk is one of the most important things a living creature has to deal with, and there's a very primitive part of the brain that has that job. It's the amygdala, and it sits right above the brainstem, in what's called the medial temporal lobe. The amygdala is responsible for processing base emotions that come from sensory inputs, like anger, avoidance, defensiveness and fear. It's an old part of the brain, and seems to have originated in early fishes.

...

We humans have a completely different [and additonal - db] pathway to cope with analyzing risk. It's the neocortex, a more advanced part of the brain that developed very recently, evolutionarily speaking, and only appears in mammals. It's intelligent and analytic. It can reason. It can make more nuanced trade-offs. It's also much slower.

So here's the first fundamental problem: We have two systems for reacting to risk -- a primitive intuitive system and a more advanced analytic system -- and they're operating in parallel. It's hard for the neocortex to contradict the amygdala.

...

And it's not just risks. People are not computers. We don't evaluate security trade-offs mathematically, by examining the relative probabilities of different events. Instead, we have shortcuts, rules of thumb, stereotypes and biases -- generally known as "heuristics." These heuristics affect how we think about risks, how we evaluate the probability of future events, how we consider costs, and how we make trade-offs. We have ways of generating close-to-optimal answers quickly with limited cognitive capabilities. Don Norman's wonderful essay, Being Analog, provides a great background for all this.

Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for some of this work, talks (.pdf) about humans having two separate cognitive systems, one that intuits and one that reasons:

The operations of System 1 are typically fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit (not available to introspection) and often emotionally charged; they are also governed by habit and therefore difficult to control or modify. The operations of System 2 are slower, serial, effortful, more likely to be consciously monitored and deliberately controlled; they are also relatively flexible and potentially rule governed.​

When you examine the brain heuristics about risk, security and trade-offs, you can find evolutionary reasons for why they exist. And most of them are still very useful. The problem is that they can fail us, especially in the context of a modern society. Our social and technological evolution has vastly outpaced our evolution as a species, and our brains are stuck with heuristics that are better suited to living in primitive and small family groups.

You can be "right" but still be condescending.

 

[Doug B]

You can be "right" but still be condescending.

Not about something people can't help (innate difficulty with risk assessment), IMHO. That would be like condescension over the need to breathe air, or the inability to see ultraviolet light.

 

[3C's]

You can be "right" but still be condescending.

Not about something people can't help (innate difficulty with risk assessment), IMHO. That would be like condescension over the need to breathe air, or the inability to see ultraviolet light.

Sorry, point still stands. It's not always 1 or 0.

 

[bigbottom]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You can be "right" but still be condescending.

Not about something people can't help (innate difficulty with risk assessment), IMHO. That would be like condescension over the need to breathe air, or the inability to see ultraviolet light.

Of course they can help it. It's the "they're fundamentally deficient in math" and can't help themselves that is condescending. Maybe they have a different opinion? Or put different values on risk? Not everyone that has a different opinion is stupid.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Meanwhile, we know obesity is pretty bad, and diet/exercise seldom accomplish long term weight loss

Wait, what?

Diet and exercise don't work?

Not sure if this is sarcastic, but unfortunately, diet and exercise seldom succeed in real world conditions.

Seldom Succeed vs Best Option or safest path???
There seems to be a disconnect here IMHO, you make it sound like it's not worth trying the more organic path
Nobody said it was easy to make lifestyle changes
I'm an alcoholic, quite a functioning alcoholic but one nonetheless, lifestyle changes are really hard
That doesn't mean they should not even be attempted or assumed that most will fail

-Once you break the addiction of sugar, which constantly needs replenishing, once you break way from it, things get easier
As an example, fat doesn't make you fat and I don't get excited when folks talk about a low fat diet, the body needs fats so starving it is not wise.
A lot of folks don't realize what they can actually eat when they cut out a lot of precessed foods.

Good stuff, thanks for posting this as you evoke responses from many of us, no worries Terminal

 

[Joe Bryant]

In other places, they're not explicitly trying, day to day, to maintain a healthy weight. Generally.

If you have to try to maintain a healthy weight, barely anyone can do it?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

 

[bigbottom]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it

Do you have thoughts on:

1. Why it seems that 50 years ago, lots of people were able to not be obese?
2. Why today in countries like Japan, 96% of the population is able not to be obese?

50 years ago...The avg weight of an OL/DL in the NFL was about 250 lbs both sides, you can look it up.
50 years ago...High Fructose Corn Syrup did not line the bottles and cans of Soda Pop in this country
50 years ago...I was born '74, we did not grow up on chips, sodas and processed food, mother cooked most of our meals when I was very young...sugar/fat were controlled easier

People are lazy these days, less and less exercise. Not a lot of folks out early in the morning or evening walking, some but not the norm.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED.

I think this is underestimated.

There is some element of sacrifice and uncomfortableness involved in this.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm reading that in 2018 the average American consumed 38.87 gallons(!) of soda per year. That has to be a huge catalyst for our high levels of obesity. That doesn't even include the number of pumpkin spiced Starbucks lattes people guzzle down each morning. I wonder what the obesity rate would be if people just skipped these drinks and went for water and black coffee?

 

[Doug B]

In other places, they're not explicitly trying, day to day, to maintain a healthy weight. Generally.

If you have to try to maintain a healthy weight, barely anyone can do it?

[checks U.S. obesity statistics]

Looks that way. Contigent on prevailing socio-cultural conditions.

If this helps -- IMHO, this overall issue, in the context of public health and in the context of addressing a widespread problem, cannot be approached meaningfully at the individual level. I see that others' mileage varies.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

You are and have always been well spoken

 

[notoriousbill]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

 

[the moops]

I'm reading that in 2018 the average American consumed 38.87 gallons(!) of soda per year.

I don't if that is accurate, but damn if it is that is nutso.

 

[Willie Neslon]

I'm reading that in 2018 the average American consumed 38.87 gallons(!) of soda per year.

I don't if that is accurate, but damn if it is that is nutso.

It's accurate and that number is down from 45.5 gallons per person in 2010.

U.S. per capita consumption of soft drinks, 2018| Statista

Soft drink consumption in the United States dipped again for the **** straight year in 2018 to ***** gallons per person.

www.statista.com

 

[bigbottom]

I'm reading that in 2018 the average American consumed 38.87 gallons(!) of soda per year.

I don't if that is accurate, but damn if it is that is nutso.

That’s basically one 12 ounce soda a day. I probably come pretty close to averaging that with Coke Zeros.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED.

I think this is underestimated.

There is some element of sacrifice and uncomfortableness involved in this.

Choose your hard

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

4 out of 12 or 1 in 3, that's incredible and one of the reasons many of us myself included cannot be judgmental about others choices and their immediate success.
Sometimes people can get motivated once they get the weight off and feel what it's like to move around more freely.

I remember coming back after Covid to play tennis and I was active in the Otis-Diet and fitness thread, lost at least 30-40 lbs and when I came back on the tennis court I could turn on the ball in ways I couldn't carrying a 30 lb ham around my waist. That satisfaction/motivation pushed me to keep the weight off as much as possible, the feeling or reward was worth the sacrifice.

I would like to see people not have to take Ozempic except like in cases where people are debating gastric bypass surgery but it seems we are way past that point and in fact it seems like people who could lose 20-30 lbs if they tried are just reaching for this drug and by that I mean it doesn't seem like people are going from 400 to 250 and screaming Ozempic, it's more like people that want to lose 20-30-40 lbs and don't want to change too many lifestyle choices.

I'm still learning and trying to keep an open mind to things I am reading in here
@Doug B has some fascinating takes on all of this and at least some of what he says rings true
People/Humans are weak in general, when afforded the luxury we tend to get lazy.
Nobody on these boards is out farming and hunting for their daily food, most of us just go to the grocery stores, that's a luxury when you look back in history
Throughout time people starved, very few had limitless supplies of food, that was something Royals would have in Europe 300-400+ years ago, it's a much more recent thing that everyone in society has this much access to food. And then you factor in you live in the richest country in the World, we are spoiled.

I think what Doug is saying is that when you poison the mind with TV ads, luring folks to eat foods they never wanted, you're going to end up with addicts everywhere and just waving a finger and telling them to make changes won't work. Maybe WW3 and real shortages of food would change some POV in the USA but do we really wish for anything like that? I certainly don't.
I don't want to judge, I didn't like it when I was almost 300 lbs and it doesn't really help. I couldn't change until I absolutely wanted to. Finding that will or break point is challenging

 

[matttyl]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

How much does a prescription run folks who cannot have it covered by insurance?
How long does that amount last or how long is the prescription set for?
If you know the answers or anyone else that might know, I'm curious
Thanks

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'm reading that in 2018 the average American consumed 38.87 gallons(!) of soda per year.

I don't if that is accurate, but damn if it is that is nutso.

It's accurate and that number is down from 45.5 gallons per person in 2010.

U.S. per capita consumption of soft drinks, 2018| Statista

Soft drink consumption in the United States dipped again for the **** straight year in 2018 to ***** gallons per person.

www.statista.com

Gallon is about 128 ounces, that's about 10-11 cans
45 x10 450/365 days...about 1-2 cans of soda and that would include all the diet sodas, per day per American
If someone like myself that does not drink that much, some folks are putting down 4-5 cans a day of this stuff to balance the others out.
Mind blowing

 

[matttyl]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

How much does a prescription run folks who cannot have it covered by insurance?
How long does that amount last or how long is the prescription set for?
If you know the answers or anyone else that might know, I'm curious
Thanks

If not covered by insurance, because it’s for weight loss rather than diabetes, according to good Rx, a single prefilled 2mg pen is nearly $1k in my area (northern Va). Imagine it’s similar everywhere.

Novo nordisk (the drugs manufacturer) states it’s meant to be used once a week to manage blood glucose levels.

ETA - when clinical trails of Ozempic ended in mid 2017, Novo Nordisk stock was around $20. It’s currently at $141.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I drink zero soda

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

How much does a prescription run folks who cannot have it covered by insurance?
How long does that amount last or how long is the prescription set for?
If you know the answers or anyone else that might know, I'm curious
Thanks

If not covered by insurance, because it’s for weight loss rather than diabetes, according to good Rx, a single prefilled 2mg pen is nearly $1k in my area (northern Va). Imagine it’s similar everywhere.

Novo nordisk (the drugs manufacturer) states it’s meant to be used once a week to manage blood glucose levels.

ETA - when clinical trails of Ozempic ended in mid 2017, Novo Nordisk stock was around $20. It’s currently at $141.

Seriously, I had no idea it was $1,000 for an order
On another note, thank you so much for the stock tip

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'm reading that in 2018 the average American consumed 38.87 gallons(!) of soda per year.

I don't if that is accurate, but damn if it is that is nutso.

I looked this up, 28 gallons of beer per year for each American over 21...I'm guessing the soda numbers include children

-now you take a guy like me that can avg up to a 6-pack of beer per day/every other day...

 

[beer 30]

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

And that's the secret to sustained weight loss/maintenance without the aid of drugs, it has to be a lifestyle change. When challenged, most of us could drop XX amount of weight in XX amount of time. In order to sustain that, the regime you use to do that has to become a sustainable part of your lifestyle. You can't just go back to eating pizza and ice cream and expect the weight to stay off.

Choose your hard

 

[brun]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

How much does a prescription run folks who cannot have it covered by insurance?
How long does that amount last or how long is the prescription set for?
If you know the answers or anyone else that might know, I'm curious
Thanks

As my son just started on wegovy. I can say, IIRC, the prices he was quoted were around 1100 for zepbound & around 1300 for wegovy. These are 1 month prescriptions. However, these may be insurance negotiated prices.
Also worth noting that manufacturers sometimes have cost reduction programs that you can apply for.

 

[matttyl]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't

Seriously, I had no idea it was $1,000 for an order
On another note, thank you so much for the stock tip

They way I read it, staying on it for weight loss purposes will run you about $1k a week out of pocket. I’d rather just go on a diet (I’m pretty cheap).

Also the stock tip would have been more useful 2 years ago.

 

[matttyl]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

How much does a prescription run folks who cannot have it covered by insurance?
How long does that amount last or how long is the prescription set for?
If you know the answers or anyone else that might know, I'm curious
Thanks

As my son just started on wegovy. I can say, IIRC, the prices he was quoted were around 1100 for zepbound & around 1300 for wegovy. These are 1 month prescriptions. However, these may be insurance negotiated prices.
Also worth noting that manufacturers sometimes have cost reduction programs that you can apply for.

Those are (roughly) the prices directly from the manufacturer. So, what you’d be paying if you didn’t have insurance and were paying cash. Some carrier, though, are starting to add these drugs to their formularies as zepbound has been approved for weight loss by FDA.

 

[Mister CIA]

MoP math!

 

[brun]

Right. But - this is not something "everyone can do." In fact, barely anyone can do it -- and this is known with certainty thanks to long term data collection. You have to go by the large-sample numbers, not by the best results of a very few exceptions

Barely anyone where? Because it seems to be do-able in other places.

This is my issue with how it's clearly going to go with these drugs. If this is a tool, to be used in conjuction with diet and exercise, I am in favor of these drugs, assuming they aren't dangerous (an assumption, to be clear).

But they aren't. People will lose weight, and be less unhealthy than they were before. And that's great, but not the same as being healthy

People who lose weight on Ozyempic do so because they are eating less. Maybe they are still eating crap, but they are eating way less of it, which, while not healthy, is certainly healthier.

You don't need to take the drug in order to do that
One of the things I'm shameful of is once you get your weight down to where you are comfy, and you are highly active with walk/bike/tennis etc...you can eat bad foods and kind of get away with it. You don't need Ozempic to do all that. I eat crap all the time but a lot less of it in 1 sitting then I ever did in my 20s or 30s where I would just keep eating like a fish until it was all gone.

Also you seem to discount the huge roll back and psychological damage done for many folks once the body builds resistance(IT WILL) to the wonder drug
It's like a cocaine addict that is trying to convince everyone that the rush up to the Dragon's Tail is worth the downside after the high fades away.

Sorry, I’m not advocating the drug. Apologies if I gave that impression. For what it’s worth, I went on a crash diet and exercise regimen and dropped 30 pounds in 2 months and have been maintaining my goal weight (180ish) for two months now. I did it without drugs and IT SUCKED. I can’t imagine the effort it would have taken if I was looking at needing to lose 100+ pounds rather than 30, and I didn’t have the ability to mentally block out pain, cravings, etc. I have heard that this is likely a lifelong drug as the cravings often come roaring back once you go off it, but my friends in the medical profession seem VERY upbeat about the long term efficacy of the drug with respect to battling morbid obesity, and recognize its potential use with other addictions as well.

It does suck at first but eventually it just becomes part of your existence. I get up every weekday at 5:30 to workout (except Mondays - rest day). I watch what I eat still but do not do without. If I want ice cream, I eat ice cream, just not all of the time.

I try to avoid fried foods, ultra-processed foods and sugar. I have good days and I have bad, just happens every now and then.

Funny we are talking about Ozempic. I work at a mid-sized company and was attending a meeting this morning with approx. 12 others. When I got to meeting, one of the attendees (he knows my story on losing weight) said "You did it the hard way, my Dr just prescribed me Ozempic". I said "Thank you, yes it was and still is hard". Turns out 3 others chimed in saying they were on Ozempic as well. I was shocked that 4 of the 12 people in our meeting were taking Ozempic. I was under impression you had to be diabetic to get it (maybe they all are, I did not ask). It seems like it is going to be prescribed more and more moving forward.

(I think) - While changing little by little - you can be prescribed Ozempic for just about anything from your doctor. Insurance may only cover it if it’s for diabetes.

Currently (again, I think) the FDA only approves Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Other uses of the drug would be considered “off label”, which is often not covered by insurance.

How much does a prescription run folks who cannot have it covered by insurance?
How long does that amount last or how long is the prescription set for?
If you know the answers or anyone else that might know, I'm curious
Thanks

As my son just started on wegovy. I can say, IIRC, the prices he was quoted were around 1100 for zepbound & around 1300 for wegovy. These are 1 month prescriptions. However, these may be insurance negotiated prices.
Also worth noting that manufacturers sometimes have cost reduction programs that you can apply for.

Those are (roughly) the prices directly from the manufacturer. So, what you’d be paying if you didn’t have insurance and were paying cash. Some carrier, though, are starting to add these drugs to their formularies as zepbound has been approved for weight loss by FDA.

Yeah. I just stated the full price w/o considering insurance coverage as everyone's coinsurance and deductibles are probably different.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Of course they can help it. It's the "they're fundamentally deficient in math" and can't help themselves that is condescending. Maybe they have a different opinion? Or put different values on risk? Not everyone that has a different opinion is stupid.

Are we in the Political Forum again?

 

[TripItUp]

Sustained weight loss is really hard for Americans but not for other cultures??

Yeah, not buying it.

Better diet, more exercise. Americans are lazy and fat.

 

[Terminalxylem]

How reducing obesity at the population level may overwhelm our healthcare system, and ultimately cost us (collectively) more than maintaining the status quo.

You dismiss people who want to weigh the risks of a medicine condescendingly telling them it "reflects fundamental deficiencies in math and estimating risk."

Yet you give consideration to the idea reducing obesity at the population level "may overwhelm our healthcare system, and ultimately cost us (collectively) more than maintaining the status quo."

Ok.

I'm not dismissing anyone; people SHOULD weigh the risks. I'm just advocating they do so with actual data, with reasonable extrapolation wrt long term risk:benefit.

Given the extremely high risk obesity poses to health, and extremely low success achieved with conventional behavioral modification, weight loss drugs offer a pretty good compromise imo. They would need reaaaallly awful AEs to change the risk: benefit calculus, and so far, we have no indication that is the case. A few lawsuit claims doesn't move the needle, when we have 20+ years of experience/safety data with the drug class.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And no, an obese individual shouldn't worry too much about future health care strain they'll incur by losing weight, and living longer.