Hacker News Reader

Comment by asib | Hacker News Reader

Sure, but the "unhealthy but not excessively caloric" diet is not a problem ozempic attempts to address. As far as I understand, it simply limits your appetite. Potentially one can go on ozempic, lose weight, and still end up eating unhealthily, because the resulting diet is made up of nutritionally poor foods.

View on HN

Ozempic does not simply limit your appetite, it seems to also affect how much reward your brain feels from different foods (and activities!), which would make it easier to override those anticipated rewards with conscious choices.

And the argument you are replying to is that it's just covering up a symptom and not addressing the root problem holistically. Ozempic isn't a fix, it's a bandaid.

Bandaids serve a genuinely useful health-promoting purpose. I suspect we'll find the same is true of GLP-1s even if it only addresses part of the entire problem.

Only when applied correctly and with other interventions. Using ozempic without diet and exercise changes is like putting a bandaid on a .5" deep wound without sterilizing it.

because ozempic reduces the food cravings, patients are able to implement and stick with a diet change. it's not like "put down that cheeseburger and have a salad" is something they haven't heard before and haven't internalized already, it's just their brain won't do it. ozempic gives them the space on their brain to actually do it.

The drug works by suppressing appetite. Eating less of the same things is still a dietary change.

Exercise is recommended for everyone, regardless of weight.

Sure, but so what? Until we can permanently change aspects of our brain, like our proclivity for addiction, then all interventions are bandaids on top of an underlying problem.

Even behavioral changes like avoiding fast food don't fix the underlying problem in your brain. It's topical.

It's amazing how the subject of Ozempic brings out such trivial claims uttered with a serious face.

The "obesity is a moral failing" argument has an exceptionally strong hold on people.

Way to strawman. That's not what I said.

Alright, what is the root cause we are putting a band-aid on, exactly?

The combination of bad diet and lack of exercise. Specifically in the context of this conversation, its about how ozempic will not fix a bad diet. Eating less of a bad diet is better than eating more of a bad diet, but is still a bad diet in the end.

Right - why do people eat a bad diet?

Preference

And using ozempic without those diet changes is the same damn thing. You need to work on it from both directions.

> Ozempic isn't a fix, it's a bandaid.

My original impression was that it was suppose to be a crutch, helping you get started on a healthy lifestyle. So if you are to heavy to exercise without hurting yourself it could help you lose that initial weight. Or it can help you with your appetit, while you adjust your diet.

You also can't stay on Ozempic, you have to continuously increase you dose to get the same effect, so it's simply not viable to keep taking it for an extend period of time. That's at least the impression I've been getting from talking to people working at pharmacies.

That's great. We still give crutches to people who break their legs and bandaids to people with wounds. We don't tell them that being completely healed is better than using those aids.

No, but if it helps avoid the discussion because the very visible side effect is lessened, then in some ways things are worse. No squeaky wheel.

I’m glad it’s available for those who need it. But I agree with GP that there is another discussion we need to be having too we’ve avoided for far far too long.

"visible side effect", dude, modern food is fortified to the hilt. If you're overeating on calories it's tough to have a deficiency in most places!

I wasn’t talking about nutrients at all. I was referring to the problems of over processed foods with lots of chemicals to increase shelf life and improve color and make them more addictive.

I’m not against Ozempic. But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion.

If this accidentally prevents that discussion, I think that’s a problem. I’m not suggesting any change to the drug’s availability. Only concern over an important discussion.

> But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion.

It's been forty years, how much longer would it take to admit that's not happening?

Maybe it’s naïve. But it’s getting harder and harder to ignore, and worse and worse.

As we export our food to more and more places, it starts to happen to them.

I hear about people who take trips to Europe. They eat a ton, feel better, and lose weight.

They get back home, start eating food here (even healthy food) and feel worse again. Gain it back despite eating less.

We’ve tried ignoring it. We’ve tried blaming genetics, character, fat in foods, sugar, and willpower. But none of those have explained/fixed it. Because I don’t think that’s the problem.

I want the evidence to keep piling up. I don’t want anyone to suffer unnecessarily, but I don’t want a new excuse to stop progress again.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. But if we give up the chance for the debate because a new miracle drug “solved“ it nothing will change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com