zlacker

>>neom+(OP)
TLDR: "...evidence so far suggests that, between one and three years after stopping the medication, people will see a "significant proportion of weight" go back on...Somewhere in the region of 60 to 80% of the weight that you lost will return..."

>>belter+f4
What's striking here is that this is roughly the same outcome as essentially every other diet (with the intent of losing weight) out there. It's just more expensive. And possibly more hyped.

>>stinos+A4
It's not hyped. It's the most effective way I've seen the people around me lose weight. Some of them have lost a tremendous amount of weight very quickly.

But a know a couple of them that went off it and the weight came back pretty quickly. It really is just a suppression of hunger, nothing more than that.

>>blindr+i5
It can be hyped because jabs bring immediate results. And it can be prescribed by almost every doctor so number of people who can report is big, and therefore visible results can be further disseminated (hyped).

But… treatment is working.

Question is at what cost.

If something is too good to be true, one has to ask what is behind it. But perhaps it is a similar situation to when antibiotics were invented.

>>sixtyj+s8
> one has to ask what is behind it.

The human body is stupid and makes a lot of mistakes. It's very obvious to me that our bodies and minds were not built for their current environment.

When someone's brain has a bug in which is has seizures, we do not ask them "what's behind" their epilepsy medication. No, we understand their brain has a problem that should be fixed. There is no ulterior perspective, some secret hidden ability they might possess. It's just bad.

But when it comes to food, we forget this is how we view things. In it's place comes moralizing.