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. vorpal+ps2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 03:20:06
>>zahlma+rb1
And this is the issue with these "healthy"/"processed" discussions.

If you live off bananas and rice, you are not going to be healthy. You can get just as fat off plantains as you can doritos.

Peanut butter (which is at least partially processed) can be a healthy part of your diet. It can also absolutely wreck it.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. derekp+uG2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 06:29:04
>>vorpal+ps2
"let me meet your fat fruit friends" https://youtube.com/shorts/Cp4093Dzt4E
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. vorpal+Kz5[view] [source] 2026-01-13 22:07:27
>>derekp+uG2
There are millions of people who are obese - not just fat - primarily from fruits. Those people have a history of obesity preceeding modern processed foods, and it's because they have very dense fruits (and starches) available to them in plenty.

My mentioning plantains wasn't random.

[go to top]