I think there's a distinct difference between taking medicine for things you can fix on your own (diet + exercise) vs things you cannot (excess acid production).
We have decades of research showing this is more in the "excess acid production" realm of things.
It seems unlikely to extend to bariatric surgery outcomes.
> This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to be fat seems like fanciful thinking.
This idea that Americans are genetically pre-ordained to lack willpower seems like fanciful thinking.
This seems like one of those "replication crisis" claims.
> That's why they could stop being fat, if only they chose to.
So they're pre-ordained not to?
I have a loved one who certainly chooses to, to the point of having had bariatric surgery; GLPs have been an important follow-up. It's really not as simple as you make it out to be.
> You don't go from 12% obesity to 40% obesity in 40 years due to a genetic shift, but rather a cultural one.
What if that cultural one is letting the processed foods industry engineer everything to be deeply addicting?
No. I'm saying it's within their power, so they aren't pre-ordained either way. You were suggesting that it's impossible for a large percentage of the population to not be obese without medical intervention, that it was comparable to excessive acid production which is a genetic anomaly and out of an individual's own control.
> What if that cultural one is letting the processed foods industry engineer everything to be deeply addicting?
Sure, the industry bears some blame and is part of the cultural issue, but even if presented with addicting substances, it is both an individual choice to consume them and a collective cultural choice not to regulate them.
Plus, cars and all "comforts" eating into your physical activities?
The timing is just about right to blame it on Reagan, either the theory that neoliberalism leads to "structured stress" or than some environmental chemical got approved in that time frame.
The idea that it being genetic or not should matter is odd? Who cares why people are fat? They inarguably are fat and will by all available evidence be skinnier and healthier on a glp drug.
I fail to see the need for additional analysis or consideration?
Digging into the root cause or petitioning to tweak the food supply to reduce HFCS are admirable, but entirely orthogonal to the questions: "will taking ozempic et al make an overweight person's life better?" and "will making ozempic et al widely available improve America as a whole?"
Having 40% of your population on a lifetime drug seems like it could cause significant issues in the long-term, especially if there are unforeseen longterm side effects. Medical intervention seems like it should be a last resort, not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really should be.
GLP-1s have been used widely for 20+ years now.
Look up what percentage of people take antidepressants. Why don't they just try being happy?
Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?
You are only picking on GLP-1s which happen to treat obesity among other illnesses. All of the other medications I listed are treating conditions with non-pharmaceutical interventions, but you haven't stated a problem with a huge percentage of the population using them.
If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.
> not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really should be.
What makes you think that these people haven't tried other options. What makes you think this is the default option, and not a later option? Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat? Do you think that people that can get PHDs doing world changing science, climb mountains, run Fortune 500 companies, hell - run marathons, are just too undisciplined or stupid to lose weight?
If there's a genuine chemical imbalance that needs correcting, whether that's causing obesity or depression it certainly warrants medical intervention. That should only account for a couple of % of people, however. If 40% of your population is on antidepressants, in other words 40% of your population is chronically depressed, that points to much, much deeper root issues pervading society, and I do not in fact think it's a great idea to "solve" that by drugging up half the population on antidepressants for life either.
> Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?
It's funny you mention this because American doctors will in fact tell people who literally need painkillers to function to tough it out, after overcorrecting for a period where they were handing out chronic medication like candy and causing more problems than they solved.
> If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.
My problem is with the scale of chronic medication use. Chronic medication is life-saving as a targeted intervention for people who genuinely need it, and I have no problems with that. Using it as a population-wide bandaid for every societal issue instead of fixing root causes is bound to end poorly, though. What happens when 50% of the population is on some cocktail of GLPs, stimulants, painkillers, sleep meds, and antidepressants simultaneously because it was deemed easier and more instantly gratifying to prescribe chronic medication for everything than addressing any actual causes?
> Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat?
I think they are perfectly aware of diet and exercise and mostly choose not to bother because it has become culturally accepted to disregard one's own health for the joy of a Big Mac and a Coca Cola or 15. It is worth noting that the obesity rate for Asian Americans is only 16%, despite being exposed to the same environment and food industry. Did eg. caucasian American genetics take a nosedive in 40 years, or did they just normalise being self-indulgent to an unhealthy degree? I think one of those explanations is more likely than the other, even if it's not something they'd like to hear.
Don't you then start trying to figure out how you can reduce the uses of those precriptions, while maintaining the health figures they're helping to produce? Isn't the answer to do something better than doing nothing? Work with the problem in front of you? etc.
I dunno. What happened when 99% of the population got the polio and measles vaccines?