zlacker

TLDR: "...evidence so far suggests that, between one and three years after stopping the medication, people will see a "significant proportion of weight" go back on...Somewhere in the region of 60 to 80% of the weight that you lost will return..."

>>belter+(OP)
What's striking here is that this is roughly the same outcome as essentially every other diet (with the intent of losing weight) out there. It's just more expensive. And possibly more hyped.

>>stinos+l
And it works much better for most people

>>stinos+l
Diet is the food you eat. If you change the food you eat, you’ve changed your diet.

Any attempt at a temporary food change is already a failure for long term health.

>>mgracz+z
Yeah I think this is the missing piece. Same impact as dieting but with higher adherence and duration is a huge win.

>>stinos+l
It's not hyped. It's the most effective way I've seen the people around me lose weight. Some of them have lost a tremendous amount of weight very quickly.

But a know a couple of them that went off it and the weight came back pretty quickly. It really is just a suppression of hunger, nothing more than that.

>>belter+(OP)
Taking recovered drug addicts and placing them in a situation where everyone's using all the time would probably lead to equally bad outcomes.

Our food is too rich in calories, too abundantly available, and too addictive for most people.

>>blindr+31
It can be hyped because jabs bring immediate results. And it can be prescribed by almost every doctor so number of people who can report is big, and therefore visible results can be further disseminated (hyped).

But… treatment is working.

Question is at what cost.

If something is too good to be true, one has to ask what is behind it. But perhaps it is a similar situation to when antibiotics were invented.

>>blindr+31
> It really is just a suppression of hunger, nothing more than that.

It is actually a lot more than that. Many people on Ozempic report better impulse control (food or otherwise). Many stop or significantly reduce alcohol intake. It seems that gut hormones are linked to reward pathways in the brain.

>>belter+(OP)
Surprise surprise, it's not like the drug did anything to improve the patient's discipline...

>>mgracz+z
> And it works much better for most people

I thing it takes less effort to be effective but it has pretty bad side effects.

>>sixtyj+d4
Most developed medical technology doesn't have "a cost". That's puritan morality theater masquerading as wisdom.

>>isopro+O1
Yes, the cheap engineered "foods" don't help, and they're everywhere. This part of the article really hit home:

> He is worried that without additional support for people making the transition, society's unhealthy relationship with food means little will change.

> "The environment that people live in needs to be one that promotes health, not weight gain.

Also generic versions of Ozempic are coming to Canada soon: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/ozempic-generic-canada-weight...

>>sixtyj+d4
> one has to ask what is behind it.

The human body is stupid and makes a lot of mistakes. It's very obvious to me that our bodies and minds were not built for their current environment.

When someone's brain has a bug in which is has seizures, we do not ask them "what's behind" their epilepsy medication. No, we understand their brain has a problem that should be fixed. There is no ulterior perspective, some secret hidden ability they might possess. It's just bad.

But when it comes to food, we forget this is how we view things. In it's place comes moralizing.