zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
> “The data show clear changes in food spending following adoption,” Hristakeva said. “After discontinuation, the effects become smaller and harder to distinguish from pre-adoption spending patterns.”

It's interesting that overall spending doesn't decrease that much in the end, although shifting from snacks to fruit is the kind of change health advocates have always wanted?

>>nemoma+j4
After discontinuation of Ozempic, people start to gain the weight again (and buy again more food), that’s why the spending changes again.

>>giulio+R5
Which is no surprise to anybody with common sense, the data for discontinuing GLP-1s show exactly the intuitive outcome. Zero diet change, zero habit change for the vast majority of users. Weight loss is accomplished via biochemical tricks to eat less volume of calorie dense junk food, rather than diet substitution. When the artificial appetite suppression ends, volume of the same food increases again leading to weight yo-yo. Plus why start to exercise when you’ve got a magic weight loss drug?

Don’t get me wrong, there are some people using these drugs to get out of a pit of inertia with weight and sedentary lifestyles. But it’s small. GLP-1 drugs will have most users hooked for life because they don’t have the discipline and motivation to maintain the weight loss without it. Cha-Ching!

>>jacobt+Uv
> they don’t have the discipline and motivation to maintain the weight loss

That argument has been tried for years and yet it fails nearly 100% of the time. Should we be trying something different than claiming it's a moral issue? Or is that too scientific?

>>rootus+hQ
> That argument has been tried for years and yet it fails nearly 100% of the time.

No, it doesn't. Saying that people lack an ability is not the same as claiming that the problem is a simple matter of instilling that ability.

> Should we be trying something different than claiming it's a moral issue?

It also isn't the same as shaming people or making a moral issue out of it.

> Or is that too scientific?

The snark is uncalled for. "Science" doesn't require ignoring obviously true proximate causes in search of ultimate causes.

>>zahlma+Mb1
>No, it doesn't

If you owe the bank $100,000 that's your problem.

If you owe the bank $10,000,000,000 that's the banks problem.

Obesity is a 'bank problem' issue. When everyone around the globe is massively gaining weight, in every country on this planet that's not in a war or famine, this isn't a human willpower issue. Something has changed, and to ignore that is unscientific.