Daily Pill May Work as Well as Ozempic for Weight Loss and Blood Sugar
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The downside is that it you need to be disciplined taking it. First thing in the AM, empty stomach, no eating or drinking for a half hour.
Which is colloquially referred to as free healthcare.
No, that's the point, it's called "Universal healthcare" and it's NOT free, since for most country's you need "compulsory health insurance" or it's paid by taxes.
It is socialised healthcare.
Thank you very much, this is exactly the point, americans cheer the "free health care" and do not see the point that for example a swiss family has to pay 15-20% of their income every month for compulsory health insurance this is not a choice..one HAS to pay it, additionally, dental stuff for example is not included if it is not from a sickness.
It's absolutely NOT free and a big burden for most citizens who live in country's with Universal healthcare.
Meanwhile both midwifes and children doctors are severely under-financed, even common treatments require months of waiting time because the reimbursements do not even cover the costs.
Considering that most countries are in a demographic crisis and will go insolvent with 100% certainty due to the mismatch between net payers and their future financial obligations, this is insane.
“Free healthcare” is an obvious political term used by people who are in favor of tax funded healthcare. FWIW I come from Sweden where we do have “free healthcare”, and it’s usually referred to as skattefinansierad, which means tax funded…
This is called insurance, sometimes provided by society sometimes by business or a mix of both, but never is it "free".
It's not free beer but universal beer.
The only people who call it "free" are from the US, not a single european would call it "free".
It's stupidity, not cultural difference, when one side talks about free and the other side who has that "free" health care feels it's a massive (but good) burden.
I'm absolutely for this system, as a Swiss citizen I'm incredibly proud of what we've achieved, but man it's hard...really hard, and it's only going to get worse because of the age shift.
Of course there is a cost associated but most places count all that as part of the cost of living in society.
>or you need to pay to see at night when outside.
Yes, please go outside and ask any random person that you have free sidewalks and free streetlights, they will probably look at you like you are a toddler.
Furthermore, it requires some level of national sovereignty. That’s acquired and maintained through military and diplomatic power, such as strong alliances. Again, paid by taxes.
More options are great, but not if most people that need it can't afford it.
It is fascinating how quickly this space has evolved. Seems incredibly quick for medicine. That isn't a criticism, just things seem to generally move very slow.
insane money to be made -- Novo had an income that exceeded DK's GDP, for example.
most big pharma orgs flirted with it if not chasing it, so once it looks like there are working solutions they can retool, make knockoffs, steal secrets, bribe (aka hire with competitive rates) R&D staff from other orgs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVO/novo-nordisk/n...
https://strivehealth.com/news/patients-vs-profits-who-wins-i...
>It’s no secret that dialysis is incredibly expensive. Each dialysis patient costs about $100,000 a year to treat, which means that Medicare spends over $30 billion a year treating ESRD patients.
>But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.
Might not be exactly 1% now, or it might be, since spending is now $6T per year. Regardless, healthcare due to being overweight/obese is a very large portion of government spend.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
Damn, that's such a shame. I wish that the US would reduce defense spending and spend more on dialysis.
Healthcare is 26%.
At a certain point, unquestionable military superiority provides more utility than keeping old people alive, and more like surviving instead of living from my grandparents’ experience with dialysis.
Not that current US military spend is ideal, but neither is current healthcare spend on the healthcare and population it is spent on.
And single-payer healthcare and an overhaul of the insurance prices would help that a hell of a lot.
I would think any sane country would want to spend less. First by reducing demand and second by negotiating costs with suppliers.
And if I were to cut any of the big line items, I would start with number two which is interest on debt
It might be a slight overestimate post-covid, but we spend 50 billion on it.
Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!
but statistically you're dying far earlier as a fatty fatty boombalatty, and like 1/3 of the US is obese, with the rest of the population overweight
I'm sure the morbidly obese are unaware of this.
For what it's worth, I'm an ex-smoker and quitting smoking was easy compared to trying to deny myself unhealthy amounts of food. The vast majority of obese people hate it and don't want to be that way - but they're addicted to food. GLP-1's pretty much stop their cravings. Using them to get to a healthy weight and then trying to manage cravings when they are healthier and happier seems like a good solution. Especially given the side-effects of extreme obesity are severe and well known - better to worry about that than 'unintended side effects' that are at this point hypothetical.
Let me guess…you have never had a weight problem. As someone who has lost over 170lbs via diet and exercise and battles like hell every fucking day even eight years later to try and keep it all off, it’s laughable to see some people think it’s so simple.
I lost my weight with a low carb, high fat diet. That worked for me but it’s controversial. I heard plenty of criticism about how it was going to damage my kidneys. My attitude was and is that if I live to see kidney damage in my late 70s…that’s better than a massive heart attack or stroke taking me out at 55.
Because of how tough it was and continues to be if there was an injection, pill, or otherwise that could make it easier—I would take it. Also despite my success without it, I’d suggest any obese person who needs to lose weight but have not had much success, take the medicine, lose the weight you can.
As another commenter said - its simple, not easy...
That is what I felt like the person I replied to had done.
For a lot of people it isn't that easy. There is a reason weight loss surgery has been a thing for a long time. I could easily see using this as a jumping off point along with making choices about what you eat and increased exercise.
There is a psychological aspect to this, you start making those changes along with something like this so you start seeing the changes you are hoping for and feeling better so you keep with it.
The body has sophisticated signaling pathways that regulate hunger and defend fat stores. In some people, dysregulation in pathways like mTORC1 essentially keeps their "hunger volume" turned up regardless of their actual energy needs, increasing hunger-promoting neuropeptides (NPY, AgRP) while decreasing satiety signals (POMC, CART).
When someone with this dysregulation tries to lose weight, the body deploys additional defenses: reduced non-exercise activity thermogenesis (less fidgeting, less spontaneous movement), increased energy efficiency, and even induced lethargy after intentional exercise to preserve fat stores. This isn't laziness - it's sophisticated biological adaptation.
This creates a crucial matrix that determines weight outcomes:
* High willpower + Low hunger signaling: Naturally fit with minimal effort
* Low willpower + Low hunger signaling: Generally maintains healthy weight without struggle
* High willpower + High hunger signaling: Might maintain weight with constant effort
* Low willpower + High hunger signaling: Almost inevitably leads to obesity
Keep in mind willpower itself has significant genetic and epigenetic components - it's not simply a matter of character. Variations in dopamine and serotonin regulation genes directly affect impulse control and reward processing.
GLP-1/GIP medications work by intervening in these pathways. They activate receptors in the hypothalamus that can override or bypass the defective mTORC1 signaling. They directly inhibit AgRP/NPY neurons while activating POMC neurons, essentially normalizing the hunger signals. They also slow gastric emptying and modulate the brain's reward system to reduce food's hedonic value. In other words, they take willpower out of the equation. If you aren't hungry, you don't have to fight the urge to eat.
I'm not just speaking to the science here - I have direct experience. Despite years of disciplined efforts with trainers, various diets, calorie counting I went from 150lbs in my 20s to 315lbs by my 40s. With Zepbound, I've lost 55 pounds in six months without the constant battle. I will have to take this medication for the rest of my life, but I will probably live much longer as a result, and I'm already reaping the rewards in terms of energy, focus, sleep quality, et cetera.
These medications do have side effects worth considering, but they need to be weighed against the severe health consequences of obesity. Obesity significantly increases risk of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, certain cancers, and premature death. For men specifically, obesity increases sex hormone-binding globulin which reduces free testosterone levels, leading to fatigue, reduced muscle mass, decreased libido, and even depression. The most common side effects of GLP-1 medications (nausea, constipation, diarrhea) are typically mild, manageable, and often diminish over time. While there are theoretical concerns about more serious effects like pancreatitis based on animal studies, clinical data in humans hasn't supported these concerns. Regardless, these potential risks must be balanced against the near-certainty of health complications from remaining morbidly obese.
For people with dysregulated hunger signaling, these medications aren't just cosmetic interventions—they're addressing a fundamental biological dysfunction that otherwise creates persistent obstacles to maintaining a healthy weight. The risk-benefit analysis strongly favors treatment for those who need it. They make sustainable lifestyle changes possible by removing the constant neurobiological opposition to weight loss.