Weight-loss drugs are causing people to spend less at the grocery store: study | Hacker News Reader

Weight-loss drugs are causing people to spend less at the grocery store: study

nypost.com

43 pointspaulpauper115 comments

The junk food industry is worried.[1] Parts of the industry are fighting back by promoting "fat acceptance".[2]

"Amy Cohn, General Mills’ senior manager for nutrition and external affairs, promoted the cereal company’s anti-diet messaging to a room of registered dietitians at a national food conference this past fall. Cohn denounced the media for “pointing the finger at processed foods” and making consumers feel ashamed of their choices. “You can help derail the cycle of shame,” Cohn told the dietitians. During the session, Kathryn Lawson, a registered dietitian and director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the food giant Nestlé, tweeted: “People need to feel heard and seen to help break the cycle of shame when it comes to losing weight and eating.” Turns out there are a large number of paid fat influencers.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/ozempic-impact-snack-food-compa...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/04/03/diet-cult...

And on the other hand I’m chuffed if it means less people at the drivethrough for when an absolutely mad craving of junk food pounces.

Mind you, where there is even a whiff of money to be made there will be influencers. Morals and tasteful (ahem) choices are orthogonal. All this to say, not surprising in the least.

Funny you Segway into drive thru fast food. When a crappy meal costs 10-20 bucks there and they forget your cheese or meat or i can basically get three times the food that's much better at a local diner or make it myself - my choice is very clear and it's not to eat fast food anymore.

Where does GP say they use a Segway at the drive thru? That’s admittedly hilarious, but I don’t see it in the comment.

Presumably they meant segue, not Segway.

Aside from the absurd prices of these drugs ($500/month) and the initial shortages (mostly caused by shortages of auto-injectors, not the drug itself); there doesn't appear to be many downsides.

They essentially reduce food addiction/cravings. Significantly reduce T2 diabetes risks via two distinct mechanisms. It is interesting the moral stance people place on this and how you don't see the same thing on nicotine patches or other cessation products.

Seemingly if people are overweight that is a moral failing, and doing something that helps live a healthy lifestyle is also a moral failing. These drugs literally cause people to crave vegetables, and that is bad because they aren't raw-dogging it.

Ultimately the only problem here is the criminally high prices. Hopefully other countries can get a better rate so more lives saved/chronic diseases mitigated.

Reading this, I'm ultimately reminded that the internet has driven us to a place where we can observe ~every opinion, and in fact, some people implicitly, even explicitly, compete to have opinions that are obviously wrong enough that they'll attract more attention than a subtle one.

TL;DR: I haven't see anyone take a moral stance.

Well, I'm too lazy to do it, but you can search for some HN responses to previous comments I've made on this topic if you want to find folks taking a moral stance.

I e certainly seen posts here that the people just need the strength of will to eat less.

I don't hear it explicitly, but I hear all kinds of static about these drugs from essentially everyone I know, and I assume it's coming from some sense that people are taking the easy way out. I feel it a bit myself as I've had weight issues myself and never taken this type of drug, but if it was cheap and easily accessible (as far as I know it is neither), I'd probably at least try it.

> shortages of auto-injectors

This is super unfortunate because there's really no "need" for the auto-injectors. Could just be standard medicine vials with rubber stoppers and patients could use insulin syringes to measure out their specific dose.

I keep seeing studies about positive outcomes from Ozempic, it truly appears to be a miracle drug.

For example this: https://x.com/ScienceMagazine/status/1816398064011083922

It even appears to help with psychiatric disorders and neurodegenerative diseases.

BTW, the the drug is much cheaper in EU. Maybe because it's an EU drug? I don't know but in Greece it's about 100 EUR and in Bulgaria even cheaper at 90EUR.

Fixes immune system issues too, I can say firsthand it's a near miracle for mine, and I wasn't overweight or out of shape when I went on.

What type of immune issues does it fix? Please elaborate.

Obesity raising your risk of just about every autoimmune disease. Also symptoms are often lowered when you're thinner, for those who have already developed the disease.

No it's separate from the obesity effects.

For me I have both Familial Mediterranean Fever and hypermobile Ehlers Danlos, I get consistent effects from them (~monthly basis) but since Tirzepatide have had none now nearly 2 years. I can actually feel the lack of fasciculation and other effects quite strongly on vs off (I've cycled off a few times).

There's already some research into Parksons[0] and we know it has effects lowering TNF-a, IL-6 and other inflammatory protein signals [1].

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156816372...

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/1...

I feel like we're on the cusp of something much bigger. This class of drugs will in the long term reduce healthcare spending.

There are drugs that can counteract some of the negative effects of obesity, but none of them will bring your lab values in line anywhere near as much as losing the weight. I suspect that not being obese is essentially the miracle drug; Ozempic obviously helps people to lose weight.

My knowledge of endocrinology is pretty weak, but I feel like given what we know about human variation in general (and, perhaps, the very existence of type 2 diabetes in people with healthy lifestyles), it should pretty much be the null hypothesis that some fraction of the population has a generally lower/deficient baseline of GLP-1 function and might therefore see a broad range of benefits from GLP-1 agonists, in the same way that conditions like hypogonadism, hypothyroidism, Addison's disease, etc. are a thing.

I also wouldn't be surprised if we find out that there's an opposite end of the spectrum associated with anorexia/orthorexia. I don't have a citation, but I've seen mentions that there are already anecdotal reports of people discontinuing GLP-1 agonists because they were emotionally disturbed by the fact that it made them "hate" food.

I don't have any moral concerns about those drugs but there are significant clinical downsides. Some patients experience gastroparesis that can persist even after stopping the drug.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/health/weight-loss-diabetes-d...

Patients also tend to lose a significant amount of lean muscle mass. That might not be an issue for morbidly obese patients who tend to have a lot of muscle buried under their adipose tissue. But for patients who are just a little overweight the loss of muscle may increase their risk of sarcopenia and cause endocrine problems.

https://peterattiamd.com/the-downside-of-glp-1-receptor-agon...

In general GLP-1 agonists should only be used as a second line therapy if the patient is unable to sustain behavior modification (eat less, move more). Use it if you really need it, but know what you're getting into.

> behavior modification (eat less, move more)

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the more I think about it, the more I suspect that "eat less, move more" might have done more damage to the weight management discourse than any other single aphorism.

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, trying to make both of those changes simultaneously is setting oneself up for failure to make either. I eventually found a modicum of success through multiple cycles of implementing one, and then easing into the next weeks after adjusting to the last.

Maybe some people really do need a white-hot catalytic moment to undergo their transition into proper self-determination (cue "Rules of Nature", "Before My Body is Dry", etc.), but I think most people would be better off with manageable steps that can be haltingly traversed over the course of months/years. But I guess that's too fucking boring to be a sales pitch or redemption narrative or whatever else scores points these days.

Head over to reddit to read horror stories about Ozempic recovery. "there doesn't appear to be many downsides"

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/ozempic-wegovy-li...

Even your own article admits it's exceedingly rare. I think most people would classify penicillin as "there doesn't appear to be many downsides", even if there's a few % people deathly allergic to it.

There is a difference in being allergic and side effects though.

In the specific mechanism of it, sure. But, what people actually care about are the bad effects and how likely they are to happen.

It honestly doesn't seem that bad, at least from the news story?

> "Still, [Mayo clinic gastroenterologist] Acosta was not overly swayed by the study’s findings, saying some of the side effects listed in it could be the result of patients’ rapid weight loss, not the medications. He said he would like to see a large randomized controlled clinical trial looking at people who received the medications or placebos."

And another doctor said it wouldn't change her prescriptions.

Sure, there may be some side effects, but shouldn't that be compared against the near certain death sentence of long term obesity?

Considering how I’ve had people do really bizarre hate replies in the past when I note that obesity is a problem that takes decades off many people’s lives?

Expect it to get weirdly sabotaged like ADHD meds have been. Seriously, Adderall shortages while meth is half the price and available all over town? WTF people.

I guess I'm lucky in that I don't use social media and live in a pretty active, healthy community where there's not much obesity. People here look like Patagonia models, lol.

I've vaguely heard about the anti-fat-shaming movement but never quite understood it. Sure, you shouldn't insult someone for being overweight, but it's undeniably really terrible for their health and for society.

I mean, I get it, I'm overweight myself and know it's not easy to change, but I'm working on it. I don't want to just sit back and accept it, I want to change it. And if a doctor criticized my lifestyle, I'd try to listen and do what I can.

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't society generally encourage its citizens to be healthier...?

> What's wrong with that? Shouldn't society generally encourage its citizens to be healthier...?

Yes. Therefore, why are these same anti-overweight people also anti-Ozempic? It isn't about what is healthiest, it is about moral judgements and feeling superior.

IMO, it’s also a variant of crabs-in-bucket.

How dare they get healthier/fitter/etc. without putting in all the work I did!

That's a good point; hadn't thought about that. It must look like "cheating" to the people who did it the hard way.

I see the same sort of attitude from people who hate e-bikes: how dare they ride effortlessly up this hill that took me months of training and fitness to conquer!

And in some sense - maybe it is ‘doping’?

But c’mon, fuck that.

What’s wrong with recognizing being fat/obese is unhealthy?

Well, if someone is at the point where they think they can’t actually fix the problem, and can’t deal with it - and it’s a real problem - they’ll tend to lash out, gaslight people, project it onto others, etc.

Which, since they refuse to actually address the problem, means that behavior/problem is also not likely to change.

So eventually, society either gives up, or doubles down.

Fat-shaming is about making people feel even worse about themselves. Most people's reactions to it aren't "time to lose weight", it's more like "time for more comfort food". Anti-fat-shaming started as a recognition of this.

A doctor having a serious conversation originally wouldn't have been included in that bucket.

A bunch of folks now a days will definitely scream fat shaming if a Dr tells them though.

For me, the nausea I feel taking tirzepatide is a significant part of the reason why it lowers appetite. In other words, the discomfort is helpful.

(I find tirzepatide nausea fairly manageable and benign compared to nausea caused by other sources)

> Pancreatitis, or inflammation of the pancreatitis, occurred at a rate of about 5 cases per 1,000 users of semaglutide and 8 cases per 1,000 users of liraglutide. The condition causes severe abdominal pain and, in some cases, requires hospitalization and surgery.

> Gastroparesis was seen at a rate of about 10 cases per 1,000 semaglutide users and 7 cases per 1,000 liraglutide users. The condition, which can be difficult to treat, causes severe nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

Meanwhile, obesity increases your odds of getting any number of debilitating diseases[1] and reduces life expectancy by 5-20 years. I think for many people this is a no-brainer.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401682/

Those are early data. In 5 years the picture will be more accurate. I'd try Tonalin/CLA, forskolin or berberine before Ozempic. Some people take Ozempic for 3 years before developing pancreatitis and the drug is still too new to have long-term safety data.

Eli Lilly's "triple G" aka retatrutide also in play.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

When thinking about these reddit horror stories, I'd also note that many of these gastrointestinal problems can be solved or lessened by more reddit folk knowledge. For example, r/tirzepatide recommends taking regular dietary fiber gummies to ease intestinal problems.

I'm willing to bet that the rare side effects of Ozempic outweigh the common and deadly side effects of morbid obesity. If I had to pick between the two, I'll take my chances with being thin.

Keep in mind obesity is the biggest killer in the US.

I think our problem was is we made obesity a moral issue, not a health one. Ultimately if there was a drug like this to stop narcotic abuse, we wouldn't be so critical. And that drug does exist, and I bet you didn't even know about it because it's so non-controversial.

Taking prescription drugs indefinitely is not a "healthy lifestyle" but if you sit on your butt all day eating junk food and drinking soda and you can't make yourself stop, it's better than just letting that continue.

Plenty of people take caffeine indefinitely. Is that better because it's not prescription?

There is more ambivalence with weight loss drugs because it's perceived as taking the easy way out. The possible side effects from some of these drugs like diarrhea and nausea makes me inclined to think it's not easy, and if by easy that means effective, what is wrong with effective medicine? Why is spending money on drugs that don't work a good thing?

How did this go from ‘nausea and diarrhea as possible side effects’ to ‘these drugs don’t work’?

they work but not without some side effects, like many drugs

> …and that is bad because they aren’t raw-dogging it.

You’re correct, I just want to emphasize that “not raw-dogging it” is bad because it deprives the individual of the self-discipline training. You’d think it would be a blanket Good Thing (tm) to have more people “survive” in general, but in reality, in the long term, it’s actually worse to increase the number of people on the planet that have to rely on chemical assistance to control their impulses

Do you rawdog the sun bro, or are you chemically dependent on other living things?

Fun (?) fact: some people have in fact claimed to sustain themselves solely on air, sunlight, and water. Okay, well, mostly. You see, they might occasionally need a Big Mac and Coke due to various forms of "pollution".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

I'm chemically dependent on my shoe sole rubber to insulate my artificially-soft feet from all the sharp stones I step over on my daily commute.

Lo, how softe the human body has grown! If only 'twere for more self-discipline, my feet could develop the natural toughness to endure Nature's harsh grip!

That's a surprisingly moralist take coming from someone who seems to have read and like Nietzsche (unless your pseudonym come from another Zarathustra). Whether you read him as a nihilist (some people do), post-nihilist or as a proto-existentialist, i don't see how you can see it as worse (a nihilist and post-nihilist wouldn't do such value judgement, and an existentialist wouldn't judge on how you live, but on what you do, and taking drugs to be in better shape isn't worse or better than powering through it with your own will.)

I’m surprised you read moralism from what I said despite it being such an ostensibly immoral concept. Moralism would advocate for the Good Thing (tm), saving people, in other words.

Im actually advocating more of a pragmatism take on the situation by saying that we’re all worse off having so many more people with uncontrollable impulses. And I really didn’t even touch on the implications of divorcing actions from consequences.

Granted, this is a false dichotomy on a large enough time scale, unless you define morality as some specific set of beliefs rather than the more abstract “doing the right thing”

I am of course criticizing the ignorant application of morality in general, but ironically truly utilitarian morality and pragmatism happen to coincide in this case

Okay, I've read your comment as utilitarian, sorry. To me people are responsible of their own existence, so if you need drugs to be fully functional, be my guest. I'm judging (sightly, I do not have that much free time), but be my guest.

And honestly I'm not even judging ozempic users, as an ex-obese. Weight loss is extremely hard and was extremely painful to me. People who never went through a real weight loss journey (from obese to not) shouldn't judge either. But please judge the HAES movement.

There absolutely were (and are, although maybe less so over time) moral reactions to nicotine alternatives, anti depressants, methadone, etc.

We might imagine a future where US and UK grocery stores aren't 3/4 alcohol and junk food.

For the longest time, laws in my State prohibited grocery stores from carrying any alcohol, but that has changed.

Now new laws are in place to not allow for example random baskets of wine to just be plunked in random isles as it all got ridiculous how much alcohol was being pushed out.

Liquor stores had regulatory capture in many states for quite a while - this is slowly changing.

What is the advantage of booze in grocery stores?

I don't have to go to two stores to obtain it?

Normally these same laws restricting sales to private liquor stores also come with a convenient quota on the number of licenses issued to protect sales.

Most areas that remove the liquor store limitations also remove the license quota out of necessity.

Hmm -- I found more booze in grocery stores means less you know: food selection. Seems a bad deal to swap food for an addictive drug, but: "give me convenience or give me death" and all.

> less .. food selection

Often, grocery stores that sell liquor have entirely dedicated wings for it.

> give me convenience or give me death

This is a product that one drinks - like juices and milk - introducing arbitrary inconvenience to obtaining it doesn't really track.

> swap food for an addictive drug

What are soda, sugar, candy, ice cream for some folks?

>Often, grocery stores that sell liquor have entirely dedicated wings for it.

When alcohol was allowed into the grocery stores here (before only liquor stores could sell alchohol), food was removed -- the store wasn't expanded.

>This is a product that one drinks - like juices and milk - introducing arbitrary inconvenience to obtaining it doesn't really track.

Alcoholic beverages rarely contain any nutritional value. Juices and milk do. Really -- milk?

>What are soda, sugar, candy, ice cream for some folks?

Are you serious? There isn't a Candy Anonymous. There's no Mother's Against Indulging in Ice Cream and Driving. There's no Adult Children of Parents who Really Really Like Skittles.

Eh. MA has gotten a lot more sane post-blue laws but it's still a pain, in many cases, to have to go to a different store to get a bottle of wine. (Yes, grocery stores can carry beer/wine these days but a limited number of stores within the state in the chain.)

MA also didn't used to allow shopping in general on Sundays.

>in many cases, to have to go to a different store to get a bottle of wine

Package stores where I grew up in NE were basically adjacent to grocery stores - not a huge deal honestly.

It's wild. There are several whole aisles that I never enter — just chips, soda, etc.

If you didn't know any better you might assume that everything in a grocery store is in fact "food".

The long-standing advice has been to shop around the edges of the store. That's where they keep the fresh produce, meat, and dairy.

(It's also frozen foods in a lot of stores. Frozen vegetables are as good as fresh. Ice cream, not so much.)

For the most part the aisles are more processed (read: calorie dense and nutrients removed). They should be eaten more sparingly.

> shop around the edges of the store. That's where they keep the fresh produce, meat, and dairy.

That doesn't work too well in the UK. Fruit/Veg tends to be a whole zone with aisles/central islands and maybe some edge. Meat and dairy is often in an aisle. Speciality stuff is on the edges e.g. deli, butcher, bakery, cheese counters if you have them.

Going around the edge of my supermarket clockwise in order:

Near door: bulk snacks and cases of beer.

Left edge: in store baked goods: donuts/bread. Packaged baked goods: cake, bread. Freezer goods: three way split of veg, junk and deserts.

Back wall: Imported regional products - mix of basics and junk food for African/Chinese/Korean/Japanese residents. Breakfast cereals: mostly sugary rubbish but some oatmeal. Biscuits: mostly sugar but some rice cakes.

Right edge: kitchen/bathroom products. Not fattening but an acquired taste.

Similar in the US. If you followed the "edges" rule at my grocery store, you'd end up with meat, cookies, cakes, and alcohol.

Healthy stuff is its own aisles and pods near the cookies/cakes side of the store.

On the plus side, fresh fruits and vegetables are directly across from the entrance, so it's hard to miss.

isn't this what a farmer's market does? if they only sold healthy stuff, they would not stay in business. they sell that stuff because people buy it.

The industry group Grocery Doppio is the source. Anyone have insights into how well known they are and if they use proper methodology? The NYPost article adds nothing, as usual.

https://www.grocerydoppio.com/performance-scorecard/state-of...

https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/gs-research/... (pages 11, 18-19)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-04/walmart-s... | https://archive.today/O0zr5 ("Ozempic Is Making People Buy Less Food, Walmart Says")

Happy to see some positive news stories regarding Ozempic/Semaglutide.

I really dislike that most stories try to taint it in the "diet trend", "TikTok challenge" light, obesity is a serious illness which is extremely unhealthy and leads to many many preventable deaths, this drug is a miracle.

And yeah, there shortages, but then the drug stores shall give out this drug to those who need it the most, and not who pays the most. It's not like the US healthcare system is fair anyways. And also the suppliers can ramp up production (as they are already doing).

Friendly reminder: The STEP 5 trial of semaglutide showed that even in long-term usage a sort of "cutoff" BMI is reached, so even skinny/normal bodied people who take semaglutide don't drop to an anorexic level BMI, but stay above the 18.5 line (after which you are considered underweight) [1].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02026-4/figures/2

Indeed, here here. As manufacturing capacity ramps up, and cost approaches $1-$5/month/person, it is an antidote against an economy wired to profit off of miswired reward centers. Success is comin'. Healthier humans, less spending on poor nutrition, lower healthcare costs and improved health at scale. There is even robust evidence that GLP-1 agonists reduce addictive consumption of alcohol, nicotine, and opioids [1] [2].

It's the next metformin imho (cost to benefit ratio). We should be scaling up production like it's a war effort.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40558601 (citation)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40357197 ("u/comova: 1. GLP-1 drugs appear to dramatically reduce addictive drive across substances. 2. GLP-1 drugs can reach vastly more patients than existing medications and they have positive mental health benefits for anxiety and depression. 3. This is our first ever opportunity to make a big dent in the addiction crisis, which kills 770,000 people a year between opioids, cigarettes, and alcohol.")

I stopped binge drinking as a side-effect of semaglutide. I'm down 20kg and don't feel like shit all the time.

Heh this drug sounds like an economy destroyer, companies are hooked on selling addiction and this is breaking the cycle.

There are multiple GLP-1 agonists on the market (five approved by the FDA for glycemic control, two of those also for weight loss) so I expect competition to drive down prices.

An interesting fact is that as long as there is a shortage of a compound, pharmacies can make a version using compounding. If demand always outstrips supply, compounding will be permitted.

https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/glp1-compounding-phar...

> miswired reward centers

I wish we'd finally start calling obesity food addiction. It's an addiction that we've allowed to be economically viable, no different than alcohol and tobacco.

There isn't a shortage of the drug, there is a shortage of auto-injector pens, and it is impacted multiple medications. If you go vile+subcutaneous syringe it bypasses this limitation and is readily available.

The auto-injector pens are great, but when people need medication, it should be offered optionally with or without.

> Happy to see some positive news stories regarding Ozempic/Semaglutide.

Have you really not seen any? The ones I've read over the last year were universally positive.

> I really dislike that most stories try to taint it in the "diet trend", "TikTok challenge" light

What? Source on either of that? It's not a diet and certainly not a TikTok challenge.

No surprise here. I am on Saxenda right now and my savings from groceries exceed the cost of the drug.

It mean this is as obvious as it gets

medication -> appetite suppression -> you want to eat less food -> you buy less food

Manufactures can fight back by raising prices, like with shrinkflation. Or selling mark-ups on food targeted to these GLP-1 users to negate deficiencies . Also, many people discontinue the drugs after a few years, either due to cost, side effects, or failing to lose enough weight to justify continued use.

The "failing to lose" group should be very small, these drugs are very effective. The main reason to discontinue will be people who have reached their goal weight, many of whom unfortunately will gain it back after stopping the medication.

How long until we have injections to boost confidence, help people get over phobias, etc?

That's called alchol

Alcohol, marijuana, xanax, adderall, antidepressants, LSD...

And you forgot Testosterone for men!

Drugs don’t fix either of those problems. Deciding to have courage and initiative does. Just trying to say hi to a few people each day does wonders for your confidence.

Exactly like being fat, then?

Anyway, can't wait for my decadent shithole to be full of splicers, will be fun to watch during the long fall.

I would say no, food addiction is more in line with tobacco than confidence. Meaning, it's an accepted and relatively easy addiction to target, so economically it's huge.

Sure, you can quit smoking. Can everyone quit smoking? Now we have a problem. Addressing society-wide problems, like obesity, is not helpful with an individualistic approach. It's just not. Because anyone can do anything.

If you'd want to argue the "discipline" route, you'd have to demonstrate what society-wide socioeconomic changes occurred from the 1970s to now, that collectively lowered humanity's discipline. That's a tough ask, so surprise surprise nobody does that.

Apparently you’ve never met anyone on Cocaine. Well, actually I’m sure you have but you just probably didn’t know it.

P.S. drugs are often a problem because they work. Often too well. Which can often lead to maladaptive behaviors. Not because they don’t.

Willpower isn't sufficient to lose weight.

Uncomfortably for you perhaps, these drugs show that willpower is not necessary either.

Don't anti depressants do this?

Whats it like being fat

Do what you need to do, but if the right switch flips in your brain, possibly in combination with lifestyle changes like exiting a high stress situation, you can Just Do It, without pills or anything. "Just" focus your brain on it. Count calories. Avoid sugars and carbs and manage your blood sugar more like a diabetic would. Keep it up for six months. I'm telling you, even if you can't afford Ozempic, well, fuck The Man, you're still in control of your own goddamn body if you really choose to be.

If "just do it" reliably worked, we wouldn't see obesity rates rise in direct relation to how much junk food is available to the average person.

If you can't afford Ozempic, you probably don't have the time or enough willpower left at the end of the day to do all that.

If you are able to "just do it" by putting your mind to it, I'd say you didn't have a problem to begin with.

If you can literally walk away from a habit of heavy drinking and stop forever, were you actually an alcoholic or did you just drink too much?

You sound like my friend's parents who didn't realize until sixth grade that my friend needed glasses to see well in school.

"Just focus your brain on the blackboard! You're not paying attention, that's why you can't see!"

"You should be doing whatever it takes to learn the material, whether office hours or asking fellow classmates."

Dumbass parents didn't think to get their child's vision checked. Amazing how a pair of $60 glasses instantly gave their child "so much more willpower" to become a "star student."

I think there is absolutely a moral issue with these drugs but it's not the usual "personal responsibility" nonsense.

The problem is it makes it far less likely we'll address our poisonous food system. The US subsidises (crops including those that produce) HFCS to the tune of billions. Fresh fruit and vegetables aren't subsided. Advertising has been shown to impact consumer behaviour in other countries.

These drugs are, provisionally, miracle drugs. But they must be paired with regulation otherwise whatever addictive poison the industry comes up with next will repeat the cycle until everyone on earth is on them.

I think the key thing to keep in mind here is that the effects of semaglutide is extremely broad, potentially to the point of being a broad spectrum aid against addictions in general (as has been suggested with animal testing with alcohol). If that's the case and nobody discovers any really horrifying side effects, it's going to potentially affect a whole lot of things outside of just food that exists right now.

Are those additional positive effects reported specifically for semaglutide/GLP-1? Because over time we're moving away from semaglutide - tirzepatide is much more effective for weight loss than semaglutide and is a much weaker GLP-1 agonist but unlike semaglutide it's also a GIP agonist. I'm wondering if the newer drugs will have those other non-weight loss effects.

Yes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/24/well/eat/ozempic-side-eff...

This is positive news, I wasn't aware of this research.

Nevertheless the point remains that the food industry having a free hand to craft the most addictive possible products and then advertising them to kids is also a problem we should address in parallel with getting these drugs to the people who need them now. We should do both.

Isn't this comment self-contradictory?

You're saying that we should have less HFCS and more fruit and vegetables....

but you're positioning this against the medication that makes people stop craving HFCS and start craving more fruits and vegetables?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com