For the longest time people argued if overweight people ate too much or not. I’ve heard plausible sounding arguments on both sides.
It seems Ozempic has answered that question decisively, no? The solution to being overweight is eating less in almost all cases it seems. And feeling less hungry with Ozempic can help get you there.
> For the longest time people argued if overweight people ate too much or not.
Maybe uneducated people, but when was the last time anyone seriously doubted that excess calories make you fat? For serious people the discussion has always been about how to reduce the calories, because "just eat less" is provably ineffective. Simple minded people continuously suggest otherwise, but data really doesn't support their intuition at all.
> when was the last time anyone seriously doubted that excess calories make you fat
There's quite a few people here on this page.
Although part of the problem is poor word choice. Eating less absolutely works. Telling people to eat less absolutely doesn't work, because people won't do it (if they did do it, then it absolutely would work).
It’s never been as black and white as you’re saying.
Lot’s of medical practitioners will even advise you that it’s the quality of food you eat, more so than the quantity. Look at all the published research around processed foods and ultra-processed foods.
Other nutritionists will advise you that obesity is all about your macros. And that if you want to lose weight you need to increase fat and protein intake and limit carbs.
Others have argued it’s less about diet and more about exercise and having an active lifestyle.
There’s also a bunch of research showing that poor sleep might cause obesity.
Ozempic seems to have thrown all that out the window and says that one just needs to eat less if one is overweight.
It has always been black and white that the number of calories consumed relates directly to weight gain or loss.
Everything else is about tangentially-related issues. Eating 'better' food (and there are many definitions of 'better') may be healthier. Eating unprocessed food may be healthier, and/or digest more slowly, and/or reduce hunger. Eating different food groups in different balances (e.g. high protein, whatever) may affect how quickly you become hungry, or support certain exercise better. Low/no-carb/keto diets may help some people lose weight more quickly/easily, and probably results in a steadier blood sugar profile. Limiting eating to certain time windows and/or fasting may have some health benefits, and also contribute to weight loss. (And some types of regimen may suit some personalities better.) Eating certain types of food (fat, protein, low-GI carbs) which are also not processed may digest more slowly, resulting in a steadier blood sugar profile and less hunger. Etc.
And despite all of this, it's also possible to lose weight by eating the worst food in the right quantities. See [0] or just Google the "Twinkie diet".
All of those are permutations on the fundamental argument, not standalone arguments themselves. The idea with changing the quality of the food is that you'll eat less overall. Same with trying to adjust macros -- only unserious people suggest that calories are somehow different depending on source. The argument is that empty calories are less satisfying and will you to eat more overall. It is all just different approaches to finding a strategy for eating fewer calories overall.
It seems Ozempic has answered that question decisively, no? The solution to being overweight is eating less in almost all cases it seems. And feeling less hungry with Ozempic can help get you there.