It’s a very interesting feeling to feel like you’re in full control of what you eat, not influenced by random cravings or hunger.
In my case I’m planning to only stay on it another month or 2 to drop 10lbs. I can easily see people cycling on/off this drug throughout the year to keep weight in check while removing will power from the equation completely. It’s quite remarkable.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266736812...
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/glp-1-receptor-agonist...
Sidebar: Mounjaro changed my life. I'd been very diabetic (300 units of insulin a day) for years on end. Taking that much insulin, my normally large frame got very large indeed. A couple of months into the Mounjaro and I was off insulin; a year into it and I was down 75 lbs and healthier than I'd been in 20 years.
I consider it a likely lifelong medication now simply due to that night and day difference to my life. It’s extremely rare I have a day where I need to be within 5 minutes of a restroom now.
My primary care doctor mentioned this might be a side effect when I first started, and she ended up being more correct than even she expected to be.
I recommend that you listen to the most recent Peter Attia podcast, which is a 2+ hour interview with Ralph DeFronzo (diabetes expert) where he goes deep into the effects of GLP-1 agonists on insulin response and other metabolic pathways. I came away with the impression that we're being too casual with how these drugs are being used -- if you're overweight these impacts are probably all for the good, but if you're not, it's more questionable.
If there’s a specific part you remember talking about the negatives I’d be interested to hear.
I legitimately have a difficult time finding anything negative when researching the drug, other than tolerable side effects like GI upset.
I don't have a list of exact timestamps, but there are multiple places where he discusses the impacts of the GLP-1 agonists (of various generations) on insulin signaling, glucose transport etc., and the conversation is generally complex, nuanced, and wide-ranging. We don't understand everything these drugs are doing, but they're clearly banging around a complicated metabolic/hormonal system with a big, blunt hammer.
The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be which is just...wild to me.
If we assume commenter is male (a statistical likelihood), then 20% is the high end of normal, and could very safely be halved. In the less likely case that they are female, then it is right in the middle of the normal range, and could safely be reduced by 5-10% at least.
The medical definition of overweight is basically if you're some number of standard deviations above the average from whenever they ran the stats, so population average = correct weight seems like as reasonable a standard.
Are you just using average as weasel words here? I get my best pump and generally have the best workout sessions at ~10-12%, which is easily maintainable for me, but definitely not for most people, having a drug that makes it effortless for most people is a GOOD thing. People shouldn't have to suffer to get to <15% if they aren't born with good genetics?
And what about strength athletes who want to build up a large runway? Now literally all of them can get down to ~7% no problem, and have no problems on the way up either.
Why do you think this? I agree that people who have associated risk factors should be prioritized, but if there's enough for everyone why wouldn't we give it to anyone who wants it?
Those concerns have nothing to do with the fact that it's ok for people to choose to start or stop medications if they would prefer (supplies allowing).
This is being injected directly into your flesh, there cannot be any mistake, or shortcut.
And crowing about saving $200/mo not buying food at Starbucks, well now Novo Nordisk is getting that.
Toast a bagel at home for $0.50/day instead.
I do not agree that people who don't "need" to be chronically medicated should not be. I think you can decide to take whatever you want for your own reasons. I am not going to tell you what you can and and can't take - unless you're like...taking something that makes you destructive or generate externalities or whatever. But this seems like the opposite?
Lots of questions here around profit and the awful medical system in the US, but on a basic level I think people should be able to do what they prefer and is safe.
If they're like typical westerners, they already self-medicate with coffee every day, with alcohol occasionally, and a big fraction of them (though much less than couple decades ago) also treat themselves with tobacco smoke - and ironically, weight loss is one of the few benefits some people actually use to defend their smoking.
Do they need all that medication? Well, it's socially unfavorable to say so wrt. alcohol, but ask any of the daily coffee drinkers whether they need their morning coffee...
So, sure, we don't know the long term risks of semaglutide ("just" 30 years or so) — but I say let people try it if they want, we let them use things we explicitly know to be dangerous, so why should we stand in the way of something that only might be eventually?
I buy Thomas Everything bagels at the supermarket, FWIW.
I can't speak to their choice of taking the drug, but it's wild how warped people's perceptions are now of what constitutes "healthy" and "fat" thanks to the obesity epidemic. People remark on how George Costanza on Seinfeld was once considered fat (because he was), or how Homer's scale-tipping 300 lbs. in the King-Size Homer episode of The Simpsons was considered comically obese (because it was). Never mind the fact that people almost always underestimate how fat they actually are and are almost always disappointed by their DEXA scans. Even if the OP's estimate is correct that they're just a little north of 20% BF (as a man), they're still overweight, and specifically overfat, and probably look soft and doughy.