zlacker

[return to "Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy"]
1. carlmr+B5[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:03:44
>>giulio+(OP)
>The share of U.S. households reporting at least one user rose from about 11% in late 2023 to more than 16% by mid-2024.

I was wondering how you could get such a high impact overall. But it seems one in 6 households are on GLP-1 drugs in the US.

In my friend circle in Germany I don't even know one single person on this stuff.

It's insane to me that so many people need these to get off the processed foods killing them in the US.

◧◩
2. Aurorn+Jk[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:17:03
>>carlmr+B5
> In my friend circle in Germany I don't even know one single person on this stuff.

Most people don’t announce when they’re taking a new medication.

GLP-1 drugs are popular in Germany, too. Not quite to the level of some other countries but a quick search shows about 1 in 12 individuals in Germany.

Note that the US number quoted above was for households not individuals, so the numbers of households in Germany with at least one member on a GLP-1 is higher. This isn’t a uniquely American phenomenon, despite attempts to turn this into another America-bad comment thread.

> It's insane to me that so many people need these to get off the processed foods killing them in the US.

GLP-1 drugs don’t make people stop eating processed food. They reduce food intake and cravings. It’s still up to the user to make healthy choices about what to eat.

Also it’s been about a decade since I visited family friends in Germany but there was plenty of processed food to be had when I was there, too.

◧◩◪
3. CGMthr+Av[view] [source] 2026-01-12 15:06:13
>>Aurorn+Jk
>I was wondering how you could get such a high impact overall. But it seems one in 6 households are on GLP-1 drugs in the US.

I had the same question and did some back of the envelope math. The data I have seen says the average American eats 400-700 excess daily calories, and 3600 daily calories total. That means 10-20% excess per person. If everyone started eating the right amount overnight, grocery spend would drop 10-20%.

But since it's 16% on these drugs, and figure since they are Losing Weight (not maintaining), safe to say those 16% of Americans are eating 20-30% less... 20-30% times 16% = 3-5% decrease in spend.

So it tracks, roughly. And we are not at the bottom yet.

◧◩◪◨
4. stewar+DC[view] [source] 2026-01-12 15:41:39
>>CGMthr+Av
I'm not sure how this math checks out.

1lb of fat is roughly 3500 calories. Given 500 calories a day of excess, that would lead to 1lb of fat gain per week. 52 pound average gain per year?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jmpetr+2E[view] [source] 2026-01-12 15:48:13
>>stewar+DC
As you gain weight, your base metabolic rate also increases. Having fat means you inherently burn more calories, even if you don’t exercise any more.

Take one person, say they eat 2000 calories to maintain bodyweight. If they start eating 2500 calories a day, they won’t gain 1lb of fat a week forever. As they gain fat, their body naturally burns more calories due to the increased body weight, and eventually a stable weight (higher than their original weight) will be reached.

So yeah if you’re eating 500 calories above your metabolic weight, you’ll theoretically gain weight forever. But in this case your metabolic rate is rising over time, so you would be eating more and more calories per day.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. whatsh+zE[view] [source] 2026-01-12 15:51:00
>>jmpetr+2E
Fat does not raise your metabolism by a lot (relatively), and tiny changes in diet lead to massive swings in the equilibrium implied by basal metabolic rate formulas. In fact, some formulas do not include weight due to body fat. If you think about it, that fact touches on the idea that your natural weight is being maintained by another body system, one related to GLP-1.

By the way... if humans had to count calories to not accidentally starve or die from overeating, we would not have made it long enough as a species to invent a scientific way to do that. Even the diets of obese or overweight individuals are being naturally regulated, because anyone could physically eat even more.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. margal+NJ[view] [source] 2026-01-12 16:10:16
>>whatsh+zE
The potential for overeating chronically has not been possible for most people, in most societies, throughout most of human history. Our current caloric abundance being available to literally everyone in Western society is something unique to the past century.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. whatsh+4q1[view] [source] 2026-01-12 19:25:27
>>margal+NJ
If you eat 1% fewer calories than you burn every day you will die. You will also die if you eat 1% more calories than you burn every day. Is it possible, really, to suggest that the availability of calories was 100% of the daily requirement of our ancestors, and not 99%, or 101%? That is a level of accident that exceeds belief.

It is incredible to think this precise balance could be maintained by anything other than a closed loop of biological control. How would the wheat on a medieval farm know how much to grow each season? If it was off by 1% consistently, everyone would have died... unless they had a mechanism for satiation.

How do you think our microbial ancestors maintained internal salinity, through the limited availability of salt in the ancient ocean?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. margal+Ga2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 00:19:29
>>whatsh+4q1
You will also die if you eat precisely the amount of calories you burn every day.

There exists something called a "feedback loop", something common in biology. You would probably find it interesting, you should look it up.

Basically, it means that if you try to chronically eat, say, 1% more calories than are burned, your body will try to burn more calories to compensate.

I'm not sure I grasp the rest of your comment, could you try again to explain? The wheat farm your ancestors worked did not provide the excess of cheap calories available to the present day American.

[go to top]