The problem is the human existing in a modern environment that is hostile to it. GLP-1s enable the human to more effectively operate in said environment. It patches malfunctioning reward centers (addiction and food compulsion), it reduces overall inflammation, it provide cardiovascular protective properties.
As kubectl_h mentions [1], the future is better understanding and fine tuning the mechanisms responsible. I think gene therapy is the end goal (permanent fix vs chronic maintenance with GLP-1s), but others have indicated in previous threads that might not be possible. We need more information and research. This is only the beginning of the "Aha!" moment (The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That's funny...” —Isaac Asimov).
You're free to your opinion (legit, no snark intended), the market will deliver to the demand. The cost benefit ratio is obvious, even accounting for potential side effects at scale.
Obesity rates aren't consistent because access to cheap calories is not consistent across the globe. I don't mean to be glib, there are certainly other factors, but as a first order approximation obesity rates of a region or country are going to be proportional to how easy calories are to access, followed by how satiating those calories are
Japan and Colorado have just as much access to cheap calories as Louisiana, but notably less obesity. Also, obesity rates have increased faster than access to calories has; it's a surprisingly recent problem.
Even in the eighties, household spending on food was nearly 50% higher relative to overall consumption than today.[0] Japanese households today actually spend 16%(!) of their household income on food, compared to only 7% in the US.[1]
Obviously there are multiple factors, as I said I think the relative satiety of food also plays a role. US food spending has been more or less static over the last two decades while obesity rates have continued to climb so cost can't explain everything (though as an aside, I do think lower costs probably take some time to have an effect). But even if there are multiple factors at play, cost really should not be discounted as a huge driver, especially if we're taking a public health approach to addressing the problem. If we just attribute obesity to individual moral failings, as some are wont to do, I think we're really doing a disservice to ourselves
'problem' is a loaded word. The data is coming in saying that this class of drugs provides potentially massive benefits. If I get a lot of benefit but didn't fully address the root 'problem', I still get a lot of benefit.
Yes, obviously. As long as the drug is available and the earth exists, etc etc
Therapies are contingent on being available. That’s uniform. What’s unique about glp-1s is that they are very effective in weight loss and many other things. As compared to alternatives that aren’t.
One, going off GLP-1 for all I know doesn't have bad side effects, other than going back to your bad diet.
If we are back at the point of supply chain issues that interrupt GLP-1 for any significant amount of time you're starting to look at issues like we had during covid that are going to have all kinds of other effects.
From my understanding getting the pre-compounded components isn't that difficult, and that India and China are making versions of it now.
I don't understand your point. Many common medications - ibuprofen, albuterol, insulin injections - function entirely by hiding symptoms of an underlying problem. If the symptoms being hidden are worse than the side effects of the medication, what's the concern?
Solving symptoms and not root causes is how you get band-aid fixes that wind up being inadequate to the task in the end. I would've thought everyone here would be aware of the danger of treating symptoms rather than the underlying issues, given it's such a common pitfall in the computer field.
Again, I genuinely don't understand the point. There's a large and well-funded segment of the nutrition industry dedicated to solving the root causes - Weight Watchers alone has over a billion dollars in annual revenue. We just haven't invented a diet-based solution which works as well as GLP-1 agonists without requiring you to compromise on palatability and feel hungry all day.
It'll be great if we do, although I don't know of any promising research avenues and I lean towards the hypothesis that the average human metabolism is simply tuned to mild obesity under conditions of widespread food availability.
The point, which seems to be routinely massively downvoted on here, is that both things can be true at once:
- these drugs are good and a paradigm shift in the treatment of obesity (and have other benefits)
- we must not lose sight of the need to address a thoroughly sick food industry that necessitate so many people needing to use these. Junk food advertising, lack of subsidies for fresh vegetables, HFCS, food deserts, etc.
Chile is experimenting with banning junk food ads to children and is seeing some early behaviour changes.
The point which people seem to be wilfully missing is that we can have both these drugs and advocate for cracking down on a food system that deliberately poisons everyone in society. Having everyone be on this drug because we shrug and say "free market innit" while big corps continue to feed us crap is not a solution, obviously.
"Fixing" the food industry isn't possible for as long as they have billions to sink into influencing politics. Trying to find a market or political solution has failed. Full stop. The fact that you're still trying to find some way to make it work is embarrassing and depressing. It's time to attack the problem from another direction, one that will also ensure these companies either go bankrupt, lose relevance and power and/or evolve into a form that's less parasitic and more beneficial to us as a species. GLP-1 can be one tool to help us do that.
We can only crack down on a "food system that deliberately poisons everyone in society" if such a system actually exists.
* Food deserts are a problem, but the vast majority of Americans don't live in one. We just don't typically want to eat a pile of fresh veggies when there's other options available.
* Criticisms of HFCS are, as far as I can tell, entirely viral misinformation - not once have I seen someone point to concrete evidence that HCFS is worse than table sugar.
It seems to me that this entire idea of a poisonous food system is an epicycle to avoid the obvious conclusion, that our bodies are calibrated on average to eat ourselves into obesity when we have the means to do so. If you don't start from the premise that there must be an external reason we're getting heavier, it's very hard to explain why potato chips should be any more unhealthy than a traditional breakfast of potatoes and bacon.
IIRC food deserts are a demand issue, not supply. The reason healthy food doesn't exist in those neighborhoods is because it closed because people didn't go there.
Yes, but that’s an incomplete view on the obesity epidemic in the West, imo. It’s not just that there’s “more access to calories,” it’s that access to healthy foods is getting more difficult for a large portion of the population. People working multiple jobs don’t have time to cook a complete, nutritious meal. Also, due to our ever-increasing wealth inequality, it’s harder for people to afford healthy food. A whole chicken, a vegetable, and a starch will always cost more than getting something at Wendy’s. Similarly, a jar of jelly is cheaper and lasts longer than a box of strawberries.
I'm Brazilian, but whether you consider Latin America western or western-adjacent, here healthy food is definitely not cheaper than processed food at all. Yet, you can see populations and regions dropping from food insecurity directly into obesity as soon as people do have access to more food.
The time argument might be relevant, but even then, most Brazilians do have cheap and easy access to a very healthy lunch in restaurants or to-go meals, purchased or prepared, with rice, beans, meat, salad... The breakfast is probably bread, but I'd say most people don't eat a lot of that in the morning. Getting proper nutrition at night will probably be problematic, but it's also a smaller window...
But, like I said, processed food is quite expensive here. For instance, a 1 kg of chicken breast goes by less than a third the price of a McDonald's combo. A pack of cookies or snacks will be like double the price of a 1 kg of bananas...
I can only speak for my culture so thank you for the perspective and insights on yours. Just checked and it seems like bananas are 27.5% cheaper in Brazil than America. Chicken fillets are a shocking 71% cheaper! I'm sure I'm not taking a lot of things into account here like the average income levels, but still, that's crazy.
This is like saying that driving doesn't work because people still walk and the real problem is transportation. It simply doesn't matter. It's not an argument.
I'm pointing out the problems of considering this a valid on term "solution." It's simply not. You need a plan to eventually be rid of this compromise.
That GLP-1 has benefits is good. That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
You can acknowledge both without hurting _anyone_. You entirely lack an argument.
>That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
Ya so you want to change a system that involves millions of selfish actors and corporations looking to profit and that have entrenched themselves, and are protected by freedom of association versus a choice between a doctor and a patient.
This is a textbook case of letting better stand in the way of good.
I'd love to re-imagine our food of food production and consumption, but it sounds like you're arguing that because food production and consumption is a better solution, we shouldn't be promoting GLP-1 agonists.
Sorry, but one is exists in reality and the other exists in our imaginations. When we let our imaginations take precedence over reality, we live in a fantasy and the consequence is that we get neither. Effectively this argues for neither, and that's a bad deal for everyone.
