Obesity rates are not consistent across the world or time. Neither work. They just hide symptoms of the larger problem.
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).
Our ancient environment was hostile as well.
> It patches malfunctioning reward centers
It has an impact on them. It does not "patch" them. This is not a rational way to describe any drug.
> it reduces overall inflammation
It can inhibit certain inflammatory pathways.
> it provide cardiovascular protective properties.
It reduces the number of cardiovascular events. Whether that number is normal to begin with is not considered here.
> We need more information and research.
You certainly do.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/18/ozempic-wegovy-weight-loss-...
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/weight-loss-drugs-america-o...
https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas...
https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/current-ev...
Edit: I simply do not understand the hostility towards this simple intervention, my apologies.
Oh. Thank you. That's very generous. I assumed we started from that position but apparently not.
> the market will deliver to the demand.
Yes, because our healthcare market is perfect, and we should acquiesce to it's demands. The same could be said of opioid pain killers.
> The cost benefit ratio is obvious
Which entities cost benefit ratio, exactly? The patients? Are you _sure_ you have data which allows you to say that?
> even accounting for potential side effects at scale.
You're free to your opinion. The market will repeat history.
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
[0] https://www.cepr.net/in-the-good-old-days-one-fourth-of-inco...
[1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/average-househo...
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
* 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.
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...
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.
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.
I can tell you which one will be more successful.
because..?
> That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
Will this be before or after we fix capitalism/finish building communism?
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.