zlacker

[return to "Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy"]
1. nemoma+j4[view] [source] 2026-01-12 12:57:42
>>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?

◧◩
2. giulio+R5[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:05:27
>>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.
◧◩◪
3. SkyPun+UZ[view] [source] 2026-01-12 17:15:05
>>giulio+R5
Processed foods are much cheaper per calorie than "healthy" options.

GLP-1 helped me kick my cravings for junk food, but that just meant I was eating more of the "expensive" stuff. Instead of $0.50 worth of Doritos as a snack, I'm eating $1.50 worth of Greek yogurt and $1.50 worth of fruit.

◧◩◪◨
4. zahlma+rb1[view] [source] 2026-01-12 18:13:07
>>SkyPun+UZ
> Processed foods are much cheaper per calorie than "healthy" options.

> Instead of $0.50 worth of Doritos as a snack, I'm eating $1.50 worth of Greek yogurt and $1.50 worth of fruit.

I won't bother with currency conversion because we're comparing ratios.

50 cents here gets a third of a 200g bag of generic brand potato chips, so 360 calories. Doritos are probably at least twice that expensive but whatever. (The generic-brand sandwich cookies that are my personal vice, are cheaper yet. There's so much variation within these vaguely-defined food categories that I can't take the comparison across categories seriously.)

$1.50 gets probably a half dozen bananas here, at around a hundred calories per. Never mind the yogurt. (If you're buying fresh cut fruit you're simply doing it wrong.)

So if you're purely comparing calorie counts and finding yourself on less-calorie-dense options then yeah there's a ratio but it's still not as bad as people think. But this is still fundamentally committing a fallacy equating "less calorie-dense" with "healthy".

The same 360 calories from white rice cost me perhaps 15 or 20 cents (plus the time and energy to cook). I'm not big on brown rice but I'm sure I don't have to pay several times as much for it unless it's some fancy boutique thing. 360 calories from dried split legumes (packed with protein and fibre), similarly, are in the ballpark of 30 cents. Perhaps you don't "snack" on those things, but you get the point.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pixl97+Bu2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 03:44:05
>>zahlma+rb1
One particular thing on items like bananas and yogurt is they are very quickly perishable. You better be around and have a plan to eat them.

Same with rice and beans, unless you're buying instant packs you have to plan and cook them, and be around to eat the leftovers.

This is the thing about most crap foods. They require no commitment. Keep them around for months. Even after opening them they last for days or weeks.

Processed foods don't require the further processing you're leaving out of the equation.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. throwa+yG2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 06:30:39
>>pixl97+Bu2
I pressure cook beans. On induction or gas it takes about an hour to make a gallon beans from dry, and then I eat that for one meal a day for a week. You can get a 3 quart pressure cooker and just make less. I’ve also seen people use stainless steel bowls to cook multiple things in the same pressure cooker.
[go to top]