zlacker

[return to "Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy"]
1. helsin+89[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:20:14
>>giulio+(OP)
Yet they seem to be spending more in restaurants:

> Ozempic Users Actually Spend More Dining Out.

> ..In casual dining establishments, they spend 25% more than non-GLP-1 households do, the market researcher says. Data firm Numerator shares similar findings, noting that while GLP-1 users report eating out less and cooking at home more, their spending says otherwise: “Verified purchase data reveals that their fast-food buy rate is up 2%.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-02/ozempic-g... (archive: https://archive.ph/V6Erv)

◧◩
2. ChadNa+7o2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 02:30:43
>>helsin+89
Wow, it's hard to think of a better example of a correlational study measuring something that would obviously be confounded by the thing being studied. Don't forget that most GLP-1 users are obese and many will continue to be after treatment (as it only causes a reduction in 10%-20% of body weight). And they're rich. So the headline is "rich obese people spend more in restaurants than average".

No shade on people taking the drug btw. I'm on tirzepatide myself.

◧◩◪
3. phil21+5v2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 03:49:30
>>ChadNa+7o2
> as it only causes a reduction in 10%-20% of body weight

This was simply when the studies ended. Weight loss for most definitely tails off, but doesn't completely stop if you continue longer than the 18mo SURMOUNT-4[0] study went for with Tirzepatide.

I also do not know if this was patients going on maintenance dosing, staying the same, or ramping up doses to the full 15mg max dose. Would need to re-read it as it's been some time.

fwiw Tirzepatide is actually around 25% average loss vs. 20%. My anecdotal evidence from my peer group shows that the vast majority can go further than 25% (if needed) and then maintain it - but that does require significant lifestyle changes to maintain. The few who simply kept eating junk but less of it had far less drastic results.

I do consider it a performance enhancing drug for dieting due to that fact. Those that use it as one tool of many seem to do incredibly well. Those that use it as the only tool have much worse outcomes. No surprises there, but it was surprising to me how durable so far those who decided to make life changes have stuck with it now over the course of around 3+ years.

My random guess would be that if you use it to break habits and establish new ones, you tend to become a super responder. I like to tell people it was perhaps roughly 60% of my weight loss (36% or so, but I tapered off due to hitting my goal) was due to the drug, 40% due to other factors like eating better and creating new workout habits. The drug simply made it much easier than previous attempts at dieting, and the results turned into a feedback loop.

Another pet theory of mine is that if you use it to break a food addiction, you end up being able to stay on the wagon easier. This is based on other life experiences with other substances - the longer you stay off, the easier it becomes (for most) to abstain. Especially if you create new habits in their place. I no longer crave those late night taco bell runs like I once did even when (mostly) off the drug itself.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38078870/

◧◩◪◨
4. daniel+wx2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 04:22:34
>>phil21+5v2
I know I will be downvoted into oblivion for this but here goes: Im sorry to be crass but if someone makes lifestyle changes after taking drugs its 100% the drugs.

Kind of tired of people taking anabolic steroids and then claiming it's a smaller part of their success or people being born rich talking about hard work whilst being on the golf course.

Just be happy that we live in a time where drugs have been painstakingly researched and move on without the ego boost. Be humble.

https://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. cthalu+bK2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 07:09:08
>>daniel+wx2
The drugs were a precondition to them being successful in the changes or seeing the level of impact be significantly increased doesn't make it 100% the drugs.

Since you brought up steroids, plenty of people take a gram of gear and look like they don't even lift. I'm not saying that someone taking anabolic steroids should act like they've worked just as hard as someone who is natural and at the same level of musculature, but good results take effort and consistency in the gym, diet, and rest of your lifestyle. You get some benefit just from being on steroids, but and there might be some genetic freak hyper-responders that blow up without any of that, but the overwhelming majority of people aren't going to look like they're a steroid user if they're not pushing themselves very hard as well, and the sheer amount of mediocre physiques from people on gear proves it.

Similarly, if someone turns their lifestyle around with the help of a GLP-1, if they change up their diet from crap to decent or good, if they move from being sedentary to exercising regularly, does the drug get 100% of the credit? Do we throw away all of the other work done?

You can both take a drug and also put in significant work that you can and should be proud of. Both things can be true.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. daniel+X33[view] [source] 2026-01-13 10:39:36
>>cthalu+bK2
There are studies on that that showed: Steroids WITHOUT training produced more muscle mass and strength than training without steroids. Bhasin et al., 1996 – New England Journal of Medicine

Belgian Blues dont really need to go to the gym, so it’s not really that hard to phantom.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. indeci+sE6[view] [source] 2026-01-14 06:47:32
>>daniel+X33
That study was on untrained subjects. Steroids increase your baseline musculature, but only to a point.

You're not going to accidentally an Arnold by injecting testosterone and sitting on the couch every day.

[go to top]