Obesity and Ozempic and more (4 Viewers)

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

 

[Max Power]

Moreover, there’s never been weight loss meds with so many other salutary effects.

Are these benifits due to the weight loss? Are there benifits for people outside of weight loss and diabetes if you're otherwise healthy?

To the first question, to some extent but not completely.

I’m not really sure what your second question is asking. The drugs have been shown to reduce risk for heart and kidney problems and a variety of other things including sleep apnea.

Yep, some benefits are independent of weight loss.

And yes, GLP-1 RA are among the most promising prescription drugs to address central mechanisms of aging, so they may someday even be prescribed to "healthy" people.

Faster, please (this was a phrase back when there were those of us on the right praising pharma’s saving of lives and blunting tragedy).

The last book I read about longevity devoted quite a bit of text to GLP-1 RAs, and the author (Eric Topol) was bullish on their potential.

But it's nearly impossible to study any drug to treat "normal" aging in humans, so we're probably stuck using them for the usual indications, for now. Then again, there's a push to classify aging as a disease - that change occurred with obesity in 2013, just before GLP-1 RAs rose to prominence.

Or you can go the biohacking route, and mix it with a cocktail of black market sirolimus, metformin, and a handful of supplements.

Would you have to take the drug forever? Would there be a risk to coming off GLP-1 drug after years of use?

And to add the idea of classifying aging as a disease sounds crazy to me, but at least you explained some reasoning behind it in the following post.

 

[rockaction]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Nah. The only cost might be if you don’t take it. This is just being scared of scientific advances dressed up in the language of virtue. There’s an appeal in there somewhere to some people, but I’m honestly voting it off of my island and I couldn’t give less than a **** about how the improvements in my health and appearance happen so long as they do. I know you have your reasons, but I’m skipping the sermon and voting with my feet and actions.

 

[AAABatteries]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Nah. The only cost might be if you don’t take it. This is just being scared of scientific advances dressed up in the language of virtue. There’s an appeal in there somewhere to some people, but I’m honestly voting it off of my island and I couldn’t give less than a **** about how the improvements in my health and appearance happen so long as they do. I know you have your reasons, but I’m skipping the sermon and voting with my feet and actions.

I think you’re saying that you disapprove of the medicine in a sarcastic manner, but I can’t be sure because I have trouble deciphering you. (That’s not entirely on you).

 

[rockaction]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

 

[rockaction]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Nah. The only cost might be if you don’t take it. This is just being scared of scientific advances dressed up in the language of virtue. There’s an appeal in there somewhere to some people, but I’m honestly voting it off of my island and I couldn’t give less than a **** about how the improvements in my health and appearance happen so long as they do. I know you have your reasons, but I’m skipping the sermon and voting with my feet and actions.

I think you’re saying that you disapprove of the medicine in a sarcastic manner, but I can’t be sure because I have trouble deciphering you. (That’s not entirely on you).

No. Take me at face value on this one. We align a lot but not on this one. Genetics can suck. Let’s hack the cancer and obesity right out of them.

 

[rockaction]

I also prefer to know that my partner worked her *** off every night to lose that permanent extra twenty she would have carried around, but then the girl over there? Her twenty wasn’t going away regardless and her health got a whole lot better without it. Just because physical appearance once gave us a glimpse into a regulated soul doesn’t mean we deny it to the other girl on moral grounds because those outward markers aren’t as important as internal and individual health.

Society might lose that knowledge but we’re better off with the cheating meds.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Moreover, there’s never been weight loss meds with so many other salutary effects.

Are these benifits due to the weight loss? Are there benifits for people outside of weight loss and diabetes if you're otherwise healthy?

To the first question, to some extent but not completely.

I’m not really sure what your second question is asking. The drugs have been shown to reduce risk for heart and kidney problems and a variety of other things including sleep apnea.

Yep, some benefits are independent of weight loss.

And yes, GLP-1 RA are among the most promising prescription drugs to address central mechanisms of aging, so they may someday even be prescribed to "healthy" people.

Faster, please (this was a phrase back when there were those of us on the right praising pharma’s saving of lives and blunting tragedy).

The last book I read about longevity devoted quite a bit of text to GLP-1 RAs, and the author (Eric Topol) was bullish on their potential.

But it's nearly impossible to study any drug to treat "normal" aging in humans, so we're probably stuck using them for the usual indications, for now. Then again, there's a push to classify aging as a disease - that change occurred with obesity in 2013, just before GLP-1 RAs rose to prominence.

Or you can go the biohacking route, and mix it with a cocktail of black market sirolimus, metformin, and a handful of supplements.

As it so happens, Topol is discussing his new book on longevity on my firm's community forum today. https://www.healio.com/news/rheumat...uss-his-book-super-agers-a-guide-to-longevity

 

[rockaction]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Moreover, there’s never been weight loss meds with so many other salutary effects.

Are these benifits due to the weight loss? Are there benifits for people outside of weight loss and diabetes if you're otherwise healthy?

To the first question, to some extent but not completely.

I’m not really sure what your second question is asking. The drugs have been shown to reduce risk for heart and kidney problems and a variety of other things including sleep apnea.

Yep, some benefits are independent of weight loss.

And yes, GLP-1 RA are among the most promising prescription drugs to address central mechanisms of aging, so they may someday even be prescribed to "healthy" people.

Faster, please (this was a phrase back when there were those of us on the right praising pharma’s saving of lives and blunting tragedy).

The last book I read about longevity devoted quite a bit of text to GLP-1 RAs, and the author (Eric Topol) was bullish on their potential.

But it's nearly impossible to study any drug to treat "normal" aging in humans, so we're probably stuck using them for the usual indications, for now. Then again, there's a push to classify aging as a disease - that change occurred with obesity in 2013, just before GLP-1 RAs rose to prominence.

Or you can go the biohacking route, and mix it with a cocktail of black market sirolimus, metformin, and a handful of supplements.

Would you have to take the drug forever? Would there be a risk to coming off GLP-1 drug after years of use?

And to add the idea of classifying aging as a disease sounds crazy to me, but at least you explained some reasoning behind it in the following post.

For obesity, a lot of the leading academic physicians believe GLP-1s should be lifelong drugs. For diabetes, the consensus is less clear. The main risk to stopping GLP-1s that we know of is weight regain. However, at least one study has shown that if you are on a GLP-1 for at least a year and then switch to an older, less expensive weight-loss drug, you can retain most of your weight loss.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

 

[AAABatteries]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

You want me to be real? Ok, you charged in like a bull in a China shop without any education on the topic and no real knowledge on how the meds work. And started it all with IDGAF. Well done!

 

[AAABatteries]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Are those two issues the same thing? Facial muscle "loss"? Or is there some other explanation for it?

 

[Pip's Invitation]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Are those two issues the same thing? Facial muscle "loss"? Or is there some other explanation for it?

They both have to do with loss of mass. I am not familiar enough with the facial issues to know how much of that is fat mass and how much of that is muscle mass.

 

[Northern Voice]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

 

[Mister CIA]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

You want me to be real? Ok, you charged in like a bull in a China shop without any education on the topic and no real knowledge on how the meds work. And started it all with IDGAF. Well done!

I sympathize with your sensitivity to the caveman like way I speak.

I simply stated that the people I know are abusing it and are replacing a healthy diet and exercise. I know that many are claiming other medical condition they don’t have because it isn’t covered normally. I know this because they told me this.

Forgive me, Doctor, you are a doctor right? Though I am quite knowledgeable in many disciplines. I can’t be fluent at everything but It certainly doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know that there is a yin in the Yang to everything.

 

[Northern Voice]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

Yes and I think some of the judgment around Ozempic (which I don't share) is that people are using it as a "cheat code" to by pass the traditional exercise route.

There is probably some judgment in terms like "Ozempic face" but I wouldn't think it's any different than any other fat loss that comes without muscle gain (which also brings loose skin, etc)...

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

Probably not. Yeah I have a buddy who did a lot of the no carb diet stuff. (Adkins?) he had the same look. Frail.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

Yes and I think some of the judgment around Ozempic (which I don't share) is that people are using it as a "cheat code" to by pass the traditional exercise route.

There is probably some judgment in terms like "Ozempic face" but I wouldn't think it's any different than any other fat loss that comes without muscle gain (which also brings loose skin, etc)...

Oh, I see what the rub is. If we criticize people for using Ozempic instead of actually living healthy, then we’re being judgmental bullies.

Man, it’s a good thing. We only live 100 years.

 

[rockaction]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

Yes and I think some of the judgment around Ozempic (which I don't share) is that people are using it as a "cheat code" to by pass the traditional exercise route.

There is probably some judgment in terms like "Ozempic face" but I wouldn't think it's any different than any other fat loss that comes without muscle gain (which also brings loose skin, etc)...

Oh, I see what the rub is. If we criticize people for using Ozempic instead of actually living healthy, then we’re being judgmental bullies.

Man, it’s a good thing. We only live 100 years.

I think it’s not so much the judgment, actually. I’m worried about what kind of overstepping will be done by the busybodies who share your view and see themselves fit to determine if the drug is available for sale. That’s where I would tend to get pissed off. And I would indeed be pissed off if people who didn’t understand or misrepresented the drug affected my access to it (when it’s none but of their ****ing business) if I’m willing to pay for it.

In other words, you can already see in both your worldview and other people’s responses here an immediate and visceral political divide that is facile and easily predictable. I want neither side to have any control over this personal decision and I’d rather piss all of you off and lose all comity than lose the access to the drug. A great deal of the pro- and con- arguments (hear me) about this drug are arguments best suited for the barely literate publications their favorite pols are pimping on X. If I have insulted any of you and made you upset and took it to eleven before it was at three, just thank me for saving you the easy discovery of what were surely reductive political and ethical utterances to have followed.

I just saved you all an hour. Don’t bother saving me.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

Yes and I think some of the judgment around Ozempic (which I don't share) is that people are using it as a "cheat code" to by pass the traditional exercise route.

There is probably some judgment in terms like "Ozempic face" but I wouldn't think it's any different than any other fat loss that comes without muscle gain (which also brings loose skin, etc)...

Oh, I see what the rub is. If we criticize people for using Ozempic instead of actually living healthy, then we’re being judgmental bullies.

Man, it’s a good thing. We only live 100 years.

I think it’s not so much the judgment, actually. I’m worried about what kind of overstepping will be done by the busybodies who share your view and see themselves fit to determine if the drug is available for sale. That’s where I would tend to get pissed off. And I would indeed be pissed off if people who didn’t understand or misrepresented the drug affected my access to it (when it’s none but of their ****ing business) if I’m willing to pay for it.

“For sale”? So you think it should just be OTC?

Never considered that. I would think that would be very bad long term but it’s not like there haven’t been a million “fat loss” pills that were likely more dangerous over the years. Like cigarettes!

 

[Max Power]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

Yes and I think some of the judgment around Ozempic (which I don't share) is that people are using it as a "cheat code" to by pass the traditional exercise route.

There is probably some judgment in terms like "Ozempic face" but I wouldn't think it's any different than any other fat loss that comes without muscle gain (which also brings loose skin, etc)...

Oh, I see what the rub is. If we criticize people for using Ozempic instead of actually living healthy, then we’re being judgmental bullies.

Man, it’s a good thing. We only live 100 years.

I think it’s not so much the judgment, actually. I’m worried about what kind of overstepping will be done by the busybodies who share your view and see themselves fit to determine if the drug is available for sale. That’s where I would tend to get pissed off. And I would indeed be pissed off if people who didn’t understand or misrepresented the drug affected my access to it (when it’s none but of their ****ing business) if I’m willing to pay for it.

“For sale”? So you think it should just be OTC?

Never considered that. I would think that would be very bad long term but it’s not like there haven’t been a million “fat loss” pills that were likely more dangerous over the years. Like cigarettes!

It's not like getting a prescription is a challenge. The cost is the current hold up.

 

[rockaction]

“For sale”? So you think it should just be OTC?

Given that I was in favor of basically abolishing he FDA and removing the power of the prescription pad from doctors when I was twenty-three, and we have had COVID and its response in addition to MAHA at the FEDGOV, do you think I’ve had a change of heart?

 

[rockaction]

And I really do like all of you in the conversation. I’m just saying don’t play politics with the diabetes medication. It’s wrong and out of place.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

The loss of muscle from rapid weight loss seems to be a concern from both pharmaceutical means aswell as crash diets, but is there any difference here?

I'm naive to these, so if they prove worthwhile for general wellness in a "healthy" weight individual they would not cause the loss of muscle mass? This is a function of the rapid weight loss and not the medication itself?

 

[Sand]

The loss of muscle from rapid weight loss seems to be a concern from both pharmaceutical means aswell as crash diets, but is there any difference here?

I'm naive to these, so if they prove worthwhile for general wellness in a "healthy" weight individual they would not cause the loss of muscle mass? This is a function of the rapid weight loss and not the medication itself?

Everything I've read says that it's the rapid weight loss part, not a direct action of the drug.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

The reality;

Most people in this country are overweight or obese.

Most lose around 5% of their body weight via behavioral modification alone, and the overwhelming majority gain it back within 2 years.

How many failed attempts at weight loss should most people make, before trying something different?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Moreover, there’s never been weight loss meds with so many other salutary effects.

Are these benifits due to the weight loss? Are there benifits for people outside of weight loss and diabetes if you're otherwise healthy?

To the first question, to some extent but not completely.

I’m not really sure what your second question is asking. The drugs have been shown to reduce risk for heart and kidney problems and a variety of other things including sleep apnea.

Yep, some benefits are independent of weight loss.

And yes, GLP-1 RA are among the most promising prescription drugs to address central mechanisms of aging, so they may someday even be prescribed to "healthy" people.

Faster, please (this was a phrase back when there were those of us on the right praising pharma’s saving of lives and blunting tragedy).

The last book I read about longevity devoted quite a bit of text to GLP-1 RAs, and the author (Eric Topol) was bullish on their potential.

But it's nearly impossible to study any drug to treat "normal" aging in humans, so we're probably stuck using them for the usual indications, for now. Then again, there's a push to classify aging as a disease - that change occurred with obesity in 2013, just before GLP-1 RAs rose to prominence.

Or you can go the biohacking route, and mix it with a cocktail of black market sirolimus, metformin, and a handful of supplements.

Would you have to take the drug forever? Would there be a risk to coming off GLP-1 drug after years of use?

And to add the idea of classifying aging as a disease sounds crazy to me, but at least you explained some reasoning behind it in the following post.

Too early to say. But if it offered prolonged healthspan, absolutely.

Classifying “normal” aging as a disease seemed crazy to me, too, but once you understand mechanisms of aging underlie most of our major killers, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

While it’s a relevant concern, I think sarcopenia risk is overblown.

In general, obese people have extra muscle mass (they carry a lot of extra weight), and can afford to lose a little in concert with the fat. This tends to happen any time one loses weight, especially if it’s rapid.

But muscle loss can be attenuated with extra protein intake and resistance training, so I’m not sure we need to add extra extra meds to the equation.

I guess it may become a problem for obese elderly initiating GLP-1 RAs, or those with limited mobility. Still, I’d rather mitigate the sarcopenia than deal with continued risks of adiposity.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Are those two issues the same thing? Facial muscle "loss"? Or is there some other explanation for it?

They both have to do with loss of mass. I am not familiar enough with the facial issues to know how much of that is fat mass and how much of that is muscle mass.

I don’t think the drugs cause disproportionate loss of facial muscles; if anything, that’s fat loss (lipoatrophy).

 

[Terminalxylem]

Regarding loss of muscle mass, doesn't the logic work something like this? ... when losing weight by calorie restriction, it's best to increase protein consumption and perform some sort of muscle building exercise, generally increasing the ratio of fat loss to muscle loss while in said calorie restriction.

Yes. Broscientists have everyone fixated on sarcopenia, which dovetails nicely with their push for more protein.

Don’t get me wrong, sarcopenia is bad, but it pales in comparison to the havoc caused by obesity. While falls kill elderly more commonly than younger peeps, obesity-related issues like cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurodegenerative disease are much bigger problems.

The average American already consumes 1.2 g/kg protein per day, which is probably enough, though with rapid weight loss, it may be wise to push it to 1.5-1.6 g/kg. Sprinkle in 2-3 resistance training sessions, and problem solved.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

Probably not. Yeah I have a buddy who did a lot of the no carb diet stuff. (Adkins?) he had the same look. Frail.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the sunken cheeks, but how Americans have normalized bloated BMIs?

Also, I’d much rather look “frail” than be unhealthy.

 

[bigbottom]

What I have a hard time understanding is folks who say just quit eating so much, but then for some reason seem to be reflexively against the idea of a drug that helps people stop eating so much.

I posted this early in the thread and I continue to be confused by this sentiment.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

When I looked into GLP-1 / Semaglutide medications one thing I learned is that the food industry has been engineering our food going back to at least the 1970's to increase consumption and suppress or avoid normal satiety signals through various strategies (the former tactic being a 100% documented certainty, the latter being strongly suspected but not necessarily acknowledged and documented.) To state the obvious, the goal is to encourage overconsumption by, among other things, engineering (processed) foods to maximize reward and convenience, increase variety/taste effects and eating rate in order to avoid or outpace satiety signals. It seems to me these efforts have a stronger effect on some people than others. These efforts have been extremely successful. This is almost certainly one major cause of the dramatic increase in both diabetes and obesity in our country over the past 50 years. There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model. I know much of this is common sense popular wisdom, but I was not really aware of the full depth of the background until recently. For me, this largely mitigates any moral or social concern of "cheating" or taking the easy way over the much harder (for some) process of modifying our diets strictly through will-power.

 

[AAABatteries]

When I looked into GLP-1 / Semaglutide medications one thing I learned is that the food industry has been engineering our food going back to at least the 1970's to increase consumption and suppress or avoid normal satiety signals through various strategies (the former tactic being a 100% documented certainty, the latter being strongly suspected but not necessarily acknowledged and documented.) To state the obvious, the goal is to encourage overconsumption by, among other things, engineering (processed) foods to maximize reward and convenience, increase variety/taste effects and eating rate in order to avoid or outpace satiety signals. It seems to me these efforts have a stronger effect on some people than others. These efforts have been extremely successful. This is almost certainly one major cause of the dramatic increase in both diabetes and obesity in our country over the past 50 years. There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model. I know much of this is common sense popular wisdom, but I was not really aware of the full depth of the background until recently. For me, this largely mitigates any moral or social concern of "cheating" or taking the easy way over the much harder (for some) process of modifying our diets strictly through will-power.

Get out of here with your science ********. People are weak minded, they are lazy, have no discipline and no willpower.

 

[Max Power]

When I looked into GLP-1 / Semaglutide medications one thing I learned is that the food industry has been engineering our food going back to at least the 1970's to increase consumption and suppress or avoid normal satiety signals through various strategies (the former tactic being a 100% documented certainty, the latter being strongly suspected but not necessarily acknowledged and documented.) To state the obvious, the goal is to encourage overconsumption by, among other things, engineering (processed) foods to maximize reward and convenience, increase variety/taste effects and eating rate in order to avoid or outpace satiety signals. It seems to me these efforts have a stronger effect on some people than others. These efforts have been extremely successful. This is almost certainly one major cause of the dramatic increase in both diabetes and obesity in our country over the past 50 years. There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model. I know much of this is common sense popular wisdom, but I was not really aware of the full depth of the background until recently. For me, this largely mitigates any moral or social concern of "cheating" or taking the easy way over the much harder (for some) process of modifying our diets strictly through will-power.

I'd like to think fight against processed foods is being elevated into the national conversation, but it's hard to tell for sure. I started going down that rabbit hole about a year or so ago so my online algorithm feeds me a bunch of stories on conversations happening and progress being made. I believe people know this stuff is bad for them, but a good chuck of those people lack the care or willpower to reduce their intake.

I'm also not a fan of the government being the solution to the obesity problem, but I am for additional regulations to "clean up" the food supply.

 

[jhib]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

Probably not. Yeah I have a buddy who did a lot of the no carb diet stuff. (Adkins?) he had the same look. Frail.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the sunken cheeks, but how Americans have normalized bloated BMIs?

Also, I’d much rather look “frail” than be unhealthy.

Yeah, it's funny, but my wife has an aunt and uncle who did some kind of stomach stapling procedure years ago. We only see them a few times a year, and for the first year or two after, we always commented about how much older and frailer they looked, mostly because of the way their faces changed. They're still around, looking older and frailer now because they're 20 years older and frailer... but when we see old pictures of them from before the procedures, we now just think, "Yeah, they were just fat. They looked much healthier afterwards."

Basically, I wonder how much of people thinking faces look "worse" after losing weight is just because they look different than what you're used to seeing in them, especially when the weight loss is relatively quick.

 

[Terminalxylem]

What I have a hard time understanding is folks who say just quit eating so much, but then for some reason seem to be reflexively against the idea of a drug that helps people stop eating so much.

I posted this early in the thread and I continue to be confused by this sentiment.

That’s CHEATING!!!

 

[Terminalxylem]

There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model.

I know food scientists have long been in the business of increasing palatability and addictiveness of food, but had not heard of this - do you have a reference? Both their efforts pre- and post-semaglutide.

Seems ripe for a class action lawsuit.

 

[Terminalxylem]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

Probably not. Yeah I have a buddy who did a lot of the no carb diet stuff. (Adkins?) he had the same look. Frail.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the sunken cheeks, but how Americans have normalized bloated BMIs?

Also, I’d much rather look “frail” than be unhealthy.

Yeah, it's funny, but my wife has an aunt and uncle who did some kind of stomach stapling procedure years ago. We only see them a few times a year, and for the first year or two after, we always commented about how much older and frailer they looked, mostly because of the way their faces changed. They're still around, looking older and frailer now because they're 20 years older and frailer... but when we see old pictures of them from before the procedures, we now just think, "Yeah, they were just fat. They looked much healthier afterwards."

Basically, I wonder how much of people thinking faces look "worse" after losing weight is just because they look different than what you're used to seeing in them, especially when the weight loss is relatively quick.

While there’s very little upside to being obese, a little “baby fat” makes one’s face look younger, no doubt.

Still, I’m constantly surprised how guys in particular view weighing less than 200 or so as “skeletal”, “frail”, or “like a cancer patient.” Yet, these same guys were well under that line in late high school/early college, before they “filled out”. Beer guts are mostly muscle, I suppose.

I have an old study somewhere that looks at average BMI of military recruits, who are presumably fit and healthy. At the turn of last century, average BMIs were around 19, but more recently they’ve ballooned to 25.

 

[Ron Swanson]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

Probably not. Yeah I have a buddy who did a lot of the no carb diet stuff. (Adkins?) he had the same look. Frail.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the sunken cheeks, but how Americans have normalized bloated BMIs?

Also, I’d much rather look “frail” than be unhealthy.

Yeah, it's funny, but my wife has an aunt and uncle who did some kind of stomach stapling procedure years ago. We only see them a few times a year, and for the first year or two after, we always commented about how much older and frailer they looked, mostly because of the way their faces changed. They're still around, looking older and frailer now because they're 20 years older and frailer... but when we see old pictures of them from before the procedures, we now just think, "Yeah, they were just fat. They looked much healthier afterwards."

Basically, I wonder how much of people thinking faces look "worse" after losing weight is just because they look different than what you're used to seeing in them, especially when the weight loss is relatively quick.

While there’s very little upside to being obese, a little “baby fat” makes one’s face look younger, no doubt.

Still, I’m constantly surprised how guys in particular view weighing less than 200 or so as “skeletal”, “frail”, or “like a cancer patient.” Yet, these same guys were well under that line in late high school/early college, before they “filled out”. Beer guts are mostly muscle, I suppose.

I have an old study somewhere that looks at average BMI of military recruits, who are presumably fit and healthy. At the turn of last century, average BMIs were around 19, but more recently they’ve ballooned to 25.

And life expectancy back then was around 50 vs. the 78 of now?

 

[Terminalxylem]

IDGAF, there is a cost to taking O.

Weighing the benefit vs risk depends on how obese the person is. Morbidly obese and you need a kick start to a healthy lifestyle, sure.

I don’t think anyone who is 20-40 lbs overweight should take them. Those people are more than capable of fixing their issues without O.

Most of the time the root cause of being overweight is lack of a healthy lifestyle. You can take all the pills and have your stomach stapled but if you do t fix the root cause none of it matters.

Many of these people aren’t capable of fixing their issues and the medicine actual does help fix the root cause in some instances.

Many? I said most on purpose. There’s going to be the 800lb woman who has to be cut from her home. There’s people who have rare health issues.

9/10 of the women in my wife’s office are on it. All the formally fat dudes are on it.

We gonna pretend here or be real?

I don’t think that many people are on it. It’s not cheap. If they are, who cares? You need people to earn their physical appearance? Nobody earns it. It’s a genetic grab bag of luck. It’s a much crueler version of your office’s Secret Santa. **** Secret Santa. I want a gift from Ozempic this year.

Her work might be an outlier because their insurance is so insanely good. One girl has been on it for two years and while she looks better, she doesn’t look “good”.

I find the O weight loss makes women look like ghouls. No muscle tone, just frail. They don’t look healthy.

Fair enough. I lost some leg muscle that I don’t think I ever would have ever lost otherwise and I’d like it back so I’m hitting the gym. I think that after twenty frustrating years of being overweight and having a metabolism that was slowing with age that I welcomed the diabetes control and weight control that came with it. People’s reactions to it have surprised me, I didn’t realize how for some people weight was a moral issue. I had always, always thought of it as aesthetic/performance-related, and never a purity one. I’m finding out some differently.

Preventing loss of muscle mass is the next frontier of research in this area. A number of products pretty far along in the pipeline are addressing this in various ways.

As far as "ghouls," dermatologists are now tackling ways to deal with what they call "Ozempic face."

Is the ozempic face and other body issues any different than any other significant weight loss unaccompanied by some sort of gym regimen?

I've got a family member who has done low carb five times in the past 8 years (yeah, it's not sustainable for him but also yields quick results so it's yo-yo time) and he has the same look in the face after the weight loss.

I'm thinking maybe a general "diet and exercise" loss it's less pronounced than Ozempic because the exercise, even if it's just walking or a treadmill or whatever is maintaining some muscle capacity?

Probably not. Yeah I have a buddy who did a lot of the no carb diet stuff. (Adkins?) he had the same look. Frail.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the sunken cheeks, but how Americans have normalized bloated BMIs?

Also, I’d much rather look “frail” than be unhealthy.

Yeah, it's funny, but my wife has an aunt and uncle who did some kind of stomach stapling procedure years ago. We only see them a few times a year, and for the first year or two after, we always commented about how much older and frailer they looked, mostly because of the way their faces changed. They're still around, looking older and frailer now because they're 20 years older and frailer... but when we see old pictures of them from before the procedures, we now just think, "Yeah, they were just fat. They looked much healthier afterwards."

Basically, I wonder how much of people thinking faces look "worse" after losing weight is just because they look different than what you're used to seeing in them, especially when the weight loss is relatively quick.

While there’s very little upside to being obese, a little “baby fat” makes one’s face look younger, no doubt.

Still, I’m constantly surprised how guys in particular view weighing less than 200 or so as “skeletal”, “frail”, or “like a cancer patient.” Yet, these same guys were well under that line in late high school/early college, before they “filled out”. Beer guts are mostly muscle, I suppose.

I have an old study somewhere that looks at average BMI of military recruits, who are presumably fit and healthy. At the turn of last century, average BMIs were around 19, but more recently they’ve ballooned to 25.

And life expectancy back then was around 50 vs. the 78 of now?

Those life expectancy gains came mostly because of obstetric advances, vaccines, and antibiotics.

US life expectancy plateaued a few years ago, before dropping due to “diseases of despair”, then covid. Perhaps more importantly, we’re keeping sick people alive longer, so healthspan hasn’t been increasing.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model.

I know food scientists have long been in the business of increasing palatability and addictiveness of food, but had not heard of this - do you have a reference? Both their efforts pre- and post-semaglutide.

Seems ripe for a class action lawsuit.

There was an article in the NYT earlier this year that discusses the food industry fighting back against Ozempic - paying users of the drug to participate in group studies, trailing them at grocery stores to study their buying habits and developing processed food products that are more palatable to people taking these drugs. There are a variety of strategies they’ve developed and are working on. One of the food scientists they interviewed was taking ozempic herself and said she would never eat the food products her company was creating. But as I noted in the parenthetical in my full post, there isn’t much hard documentation of Big Food products explicitly designed to suppress satiety directly, moreso to avoid or bypass the normal signals that our hormones send. I think there are currently multiple lawsuits pending against big food companies relating to this.

 

[AAABatteries]

I’m also not aware of specific studies but I imagine it would be hard to prove absent company documents as many of the addictive substances are considered standard nowadays and wouldn’t be questioned. Adding sugar, salt and fat to items is kind of the norm for a while with junk food.

 

[Terminalxylem]

There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model.

I know food scientists have long been in the business of increasing palatability and addictiveness of food, but had not heard of this - do you have a reference? Both their efforts pre- and post-semaglutide.

Seems ripe for a class action lawsuit.

There was an article in the NYT earlier this year that discusses the food industry fighting back against Ozempic - paying users of the drug to participate in group studies, trailing them at grocery stores to study their buying habits and developing processed food products that are more palatable to people taking these drugs. There are a variety of strategies they’ve developed and are working on. One of the food scientists they interviewed was taking ozempic herself and said she would never eat the food products her company was creating. But as I noted in the parenthetical in my full post, there isn’t much hard documentation of Big Food products explicitly designed to suppress satiety directly, moreso to avoid or bypass the normal signals that our hormones send. I think there are currently multiple lawsuits pending against big food companies relating to this.

This NYT article?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

There is no question that food scientists have been well aware of the function of GLP-1 and PYY hormones in the body for many decades and have developed strategies to specifically target their role in our diets. There is also no doubt that "Big Food" has been scrambling for at least the past five years or so to combat these new Semaglutide and similar medications, which threaten their business model.

I know food scientists have long been in the business of increasing palatability and addictiveness of food, but had not heard of this - do you have a reference? Both their efforts pre- and post-semaglutide.

Seems ripe for a class action lawsuit.

There was an article in the NYT earlier this year that discusses the food industry fighting back against Ozempic - paying users of the drug to participate in group studies, trailing them at grocery stores to study their buying habits and developing processed food products that are more palatable to people taking these drugs. There are a variety of strategies they’ve developed and are working on. One of the food scientists they interviewed was taking ozempic herself and said she would never eat the food products her company was creating. But as I noted in the parenthetical in my full post, there isn’t much hard documentation of Big Food products explicitly designed to suppress satiety directly, moreso to avoid or bypass the normal signals that our hormones send. I think there are currently multiple lawsuits pending against big food companies relating to this.

This NYT article?

Yes - I saw that one and at least one other written by a Dr.