13 comments

  • datahack3 hours ago
    The long-term side effects of GLP-1 drugs are not well-studied, but the press seems to talk about them as if they are—in glowing terms as if their broad adoption is a given and a lifetime attached to the tit of a friendly drug company (with your credit card inserted) is merely a temporary problem.

    I think we need to greet this whole class of drugs with skepticism, if for no other reason than they’re being a pharma companies’ wet dream of a product. The incentives to interrupt their rollout don’t exist.

    I’m aware of the wide range of benefits, and understand they may end up saving lives. But skepticism is warranted here.

    • horsawlarway3 hours ago
      GLP-1s are relatively well studied, though. At least compared to the vast majority of "new" drugs.

      They have a history going back to the 1970s (50 years) and have multiple FDA approved brands going on 15 years now (Liraglutide - 2009 for the EU, 2010 for the US).

      So sure - we're going to get the chance to observe effects that are very hard to tease out prior just because we have a large number of folks taking them now.

      But the press talks about them as if they are well studied because... well... comparatively they are.

      Basically - even if I agree that caution is warranted here (and I do), your argument can be equally applied to drugs like ACE inhibitors/ARBs, and insulin. Both are which are pretty compelling drugs.

      • apothegm53 minutes ago
        If they’ve been around that long, what changed to make them suddenly so broadly used?
        • zw736 minutes ago
          - FDA approval for use for weight loss. Previously this was off-label use

          - adoption of GLPs into diabetes treatment guidelines

      • aaomidi37 minutes ago
        Also, this effectively eliminating other, well studied and dangerous, health issues definitely makes the risk worth it.

        This is categorically solving addiction, obesity, and diabetes (t2 only I believe). I’m very happy to live in a time period where these meds exist.

    • hwillis3 hours ago
      > The long-term side effects of GLP-1 drugs are not well-studied

      GLP-1 is a hormone that is released every time you eat, and the drugs are virtually identical hormones at natural levels that take ~100x longer (half life of a couple hours) to be excreted. It's a tiny amount of one more peptide among millions- that part is certainly safe.

      If there's any issue with the drug it would be from the constant activation of a natural hormone receptor. Like how anabolic steroids can hurt you, and TRT can affect your natural testosterone production. Maybe after 10 years it breaks your natural satiety system and makes you always/never hungry. That kind of thing would probably show up in mouse models.

      Either way- obesity is the largest cause of lost years in the first world and it isn't close. If you are obese your whole life you die 10-15 years earlier and are sicker. It's not going to kill you as fast as untreated t2 diabetes, but in both cases it would be crazy not to take a drug that can just make those problems just go away.

    • UI_at_80x2453 minutes ago
      >The long-term side effects of GLP-1 drugs are not well-studied

      The long-term effects of diabetes is. For me, this was the _ONLY_ thing that brought my blood sugar under control.

      Even with severe dietary restriction, my blood sugar would be dangerously high first thing in the morning after fasting 12-16hrs.

      The 'potential side effects' of the drugs that I was taking was terrifying. And the list of drugs that I was on was so long that even if there was only a 1% chance that I'd catch a side effect from 1% of the drugs then my prospects went down to nil.

      I was scheduled for gastric-bypass surgery.

      I can modestly say that ozempic probably saved my life.

      I've lost ~100lbs (~45kgs) and I can now wear the same size clothes that I wore in high-school which is a nice benefit too.

    • ogogmad3 hours ago
      > The long-term side effects of GLP-1 drugs are not well-studied

      I think it's been around for long enough (2017-2024 for Semaglutide), and there have been enough people taking it (tens of millions), that it's possible to start drawing conclusions about this. Maybe a Bayesian approach might say something?

    • cm21873 hours ago
      How is that different from covid vaccines? The long term risk wasn't known, but covid was super dangerous for a subset of the population, so for those it was absolutely a risk worth taking, and so is obesity.
      • xd19363 hours ago
        Obesity isn't an airborne contagion with an R0 of 5.08 that some percentage of the population was actively denying existence of?
        • grues-dinner3 hours ago
          Memetically speaking, it evidently has an R0 above one, though! And I guess there are even such people who deny that there is a "condition" of obesity.
        • cm21873 hours ago
          ...and?
      • ifyoubuildit3 hours ago
        Its not very different from those or any other drugs. There's always a cost benefit analysis.

        Now we have to wonder when people are going to try mandating these. I can imagine the argument will be "of course not, covid was killing everyone and contagious. Well, obesity is killing everyone and driving up healthcare costs. But my body my choice! But not when it can harm other people! Etc"

        • pupppet2 hours ago
          They’re not having to turn away people at the hospital because it’s full of obese people.
      • DonsDiscountGas3 hours ago
        A vaccine only takes a few doses, plus they're pretty cheap. Worst case scenario you get a booster every year. These drugs stop working the second you drop taking them
        • PapaPalpatine3 hours ago
          As a former user, “the second you stop taking them” isn’t totally accurate. It does take a few weeks for the effects to wear off and appetite to return.
          • martin_a3 hours ago
            I've started using them a few weeks ago, how was your success with them?
            • cm21873 hours ago
              It's down to how much of a diet you do (the drug only manages your appetite). I went hardcore and lost 40kg in 3 months, almost "effortlessly". One meal a day, no sugar, 45min cardio daily. Now trying to figure out where the floor is and planning a progressive reduction in dose/frequency over the next few months. I am lucky I had no side effect and I increased the dosage only sparingly, but people react differently.
            • PapaPalpatine3 hours ago
              Very successful. I used it as an opportunity to change my lifestyle and eating habits.

              I stopped eating processed foods and cut nearly all my sugar intake. It was a total lifestyle change and I lost 40 pounds in the process. I’ve been off of it for nearly a month, kept off the weight so far, and never felt better.

            • phil213 hours ago
              Nothing else I've taken so far has changed my life in such an immediate and drastic manner. It's why I'm all over these threads in a desire to help dispel misinformed social-media fueled FUD. There are legitimate concerns to be had, but what most people repeat even on HN are downright Facebook meme quality level.

              That said...

              For me, I went from 276lbs to 162lbs at my lowest in about 9mo on Tirzepatide (Mounjaro/Zepbound). 85% of the loss was in the first 100 days. I was putting in all the effort I possibly could aside from taking the drug, but I attribute the drug for most of my actual long-term success. It made things I had tried to do in the past (eating healthy, eating properly sized portions, regulating my snacking/late night binges, drinking) much easier. I call it a PED for dieting. Losing the weight also made exercising at first tolerable, and these days downright enjoyable and something I look forward to on training days.

              Since I hit my lowest I have put on about 25lbs of lean muscle mass by hitting the gym for resistance training at a regular consistent schedule. When you see the results I did so rapidly in one direction, it's highly motivating to know you can "put in the work" and see results in the other. I'm now about 187lbs at 5'11" with a body fat percentage of just under 12% from my latest DEXA scan. I plan to try to stabilize at around 11% or so, since the studies on it show 12% is where the major long-term health benefits start to accrue. After that I will begin to focus on increasing my VO2MAX (e.g. cardio fitness) as much as possible. I'll be at 2 years from starting Tirzepatide this coming March.

              The drug in combination with lifestyle changes can work wonders. I am but one example, and not much of an outlier at this point.

              I used to worry about "outing" myself when I first started taking it, but after seeing the results I did and having friends ask me what the hell I was doing to see such success I realized I could no longer pretend it was "eating less and moving more" - I didn't want to be part of the problem.

              Hope it helps someone reading this!

        • dartharva3 hours ago
          > Worst case scenario you get a booster every year.

          Only a conjecture, since as OP said, the long-term effects haven't been studied for us to be so sure.

          • bryanlarsen2 hours ago
            The long-term effects of COVID are pretty darn obvious, though. I know two people with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis from the 2009 flu epidemic and it's nasty. The vaccine was widespread enough that we've got a reasonable upper bound on on the COVID vaccine worst case to make the cost/benefit analysis an easy call.
        • Spivak3 hours ago
          * They're expensive right now because there's a shortage.

          * Once the actuaries see the long term data I imagine insurance companies will foot the bill entirely for them as a cost-saving measure. The only thing strong enough to override a doctor's "I bet it's your period" is "I bet it's your weight."

          * It is genuinely far far easier to maintain weight than lose it. Your body establishes a new set-point and you +/-10 lbs around it naturally.

          Can't speak for these drugs specifically but after losing 100lbs my appetite adjusted, got higher energy, far less effort to do (well everything) but working out especially.

          • cm21873 hours ago
            Though in the UK they cost something like £200 a month, I am saving that in food just by fasting while on those drugs, so it kinds of pays for itself.
            • Spivak2 hours ago
              Oh I was considering the $200/mo to be the expensive price. Yeah name brand you can pay $1k/mo but I don't imagine most folks going that route over the generic given the choice.

              But yeah, that's a good point I suppose. Fewer side effects than meth that's for sure.

        • cm21873 hours ago
          Yeah but you are not meant to do a diet your whole life either, they help you make a diet. If people revert to unhealthy habits after that it is on them. But there is a difference between fasting to lose weight (where you are hungry, very hard to sustain) and a stable diet (where you do not have to fight hunger).
          • ifyoubuildit3 hours ago
            You kinda do though. Ideally dieting isn't some activity you do for a little while and then go back to inhaling oreos. Instead you find a long term sustainable lifestyle that doesn't cause you to steadily gain weight.
            • cm21872 hours ago
              I think you are confusing "dieting" and "sustainable lifestyle". Dieting is starving yourself to lose weight. That's not sustainable and those drugs help a lot. But once you are on target weight, you can switch to a sustainable lifestyle where hunger is much less of a problem, just resisting the temptation of the oeros. But that's not hunger, that's gourmandise.
              • bryanlarsen2 hours ago
                > Dieting is starving yourself to lose weight.

                No it's not. Diet is just what you eat. It can be healthy or unhealthy.

        • paulkrush3 hours ago
          They(you know: those people) need to find a vaccine that does the same thing as these GLP-1s. It seems termination shock is becoming a bigger issue with these new products as time goes on.
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
  • _fat_santa3 hours ago
    I would say it's one of the most important breakthroughs of the 21st century, but as far as the most important breakthrough's ever? Sorry, antibiotics, penicillin and ivermectin hold the podium for that accomplishment.

    I equate GLP1 hype in the medical industry to AI hype in the tech industry. Yes it's an important breakthrough but there are other much more important breakthroughs that humans have achieved in the past.

    • foobarian3 hours ago
      It is wild to me that something as life-altering as antibiotics was only invented in early 20th century, and that the entire human history up to that point was antibiotic-less. I'm not sure that enough time has passed yet to fully absorb the consequences of antibiotics into culture and societal systems, and I wonder what that will look like - maybe given another century or two?
      • DrillShopper3 hours ago
        Bad news - if we keep misusing antibiotics as a species we will be back in that antibiotic-less existence.
  • xattt3 hours ago
    I’ve noticed anecdotal unfounded spitefulness towards people who use GLP1s.

    I don’t know if it’s rooted in jealousy over access the drug (either via insurance or having a provider willing to prescribe) or whether it’s because people see those who take it for weight loss as “cheating”.

    • martin_a3 hours ago
      > who take it for weight loss as “cheating”

      I've felt and thought about it the same way for a long time. Especially because the solution to obesity is just so easy: Eat less (and healthier) and exercise more.

      It's just so easy, just do it. Why do I struggle with that? Well, probably not disciplined enough. Time to feel bad about that and question everything or at least something...

      In theory it is easy, but reality is much more nuanced with job or personal stress, psychic health, impact of your surroundings, your body chemistry being disturbed and whatnot. This medicine seems (so far) to take stress (somewhat) out of it, so I can focus on changing the underlying behaviour without having to worry about calorie counting at the same moment.

      But yes, if you stop taking it, and nothing has changed, you will probably bloat up again.

      • ZYbCRq22HbJ2y72 hours ago
        I think people put too much weight behind the will they think others all possess. The only empathy they summon is to compare to an ideal, without truly understanding not many are beings possessing identical traits that make up the phenomenon of behavior.

        No one is screaming at a schizophrenic to summon the willpower to stop hearing voices, but many certainly will do so to those fighting addictions or other ingrained behavior. This might seem like false equivalence, but they are both abnormal psychological traits, one happens to rely on the environment more than the other.

        As another example, some animals will overfeed if you let them, and you can craft super obese animals genetically. No one is damning fat squirrels, screaming "If only they had the willpower to stop overfeeding!"

      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
    • perlgeek2 hours ago
      Some years ago, I had the (mostly subconscious) thought that fat people simply didn't have much self-control, or didn't really want to lose weight.

      And then I listed to a few. The stories are horrific.

      Most have tried 10+ different diets throughout their life, none of them successful in the long term. They get fat-shamed, discriminated against, insulted.

      They go to a doctor for any reason whatsoever, even for things totally unrelated to obesity, and their doctors tell them to lose weight. Either in a very careful and sympathetic manner, or very condescendingly.

      Many develop shame, anxiety and anger around the topic.

      I've also learned how hard it is to change deep-seated behaviors, especially if your environment isn't really helping, or provides incentives in the other direction.

      In the end, most medical intervention are a form of "cheating". Your eyes aren't good? Wear glasses or contact lenses. Your immune system can't cope with these bacteria? take antibiotics. Cholesterol too high? Take a statin (or whatever it's called). Can't control your eating habits and hunger? Take GLP-1s.

      We should strive to reduce our moralizing and help those we can help.

    • moduspol3 hours ago
      It's because obesity is implicitly seen as a moral failing. You lack the willpower or discipline to eat better and/or exercise.

      I think it'll be gone over the next few years as these drugs become more prevalent.

    • thefz3 hours ago
      > I don’t know if it’s rooted in jealousy over access the drug (either via insurance or having a provider willing to prescribe) or whether it’s because people see those who take it for weight loss as “cheating”.

      No, it's because you can get the same result, plus other ancillary benefits, by simply stopping the behavior causing the issue.

      Imagine smokers rambling they can't stop smoking because bad tobacco put addicting chemicals in their cigs. Just put that shit out already, right? Same for food. Eating for survival =/= the american diet.

      Processed food is bad, and everywhere. Ok. What are you going to do, take semaglutide and then eat the same shit, but a bit less? Or are you going to switch to healthier food? Then why don't you switch now and skip taking a medicine for the rest of your days?

      GLP1 is a drug to heal the lack of willpower, not to heal the body.

      • asciimov1 hour ago
        > by simply stopping the behavior causing the issue.

        Must be nice to have a metabolic system that works correctly. A lot of us don't.

        For too long obesity as a mental fitness issue without considering underlying causes. Too often overeating is considered the cause not the symptom.

        For many, our bodies lie, telling us we need to eat because our blood sugar is low, when in fact it's already normal-high but other process is getting in the way of energy production.

      • xnx2 hours ago
        > No, it's because you can get the same result, plus other ancillary benefits, by simply stopping the behavior causing the issue.

        And people who are 5'7" can dunk basketball if they "simply" jump higher.

      • brianmcc1 hour ago
        Sorry but this is a hopelessly naive view of what is widely understood to be A Bit More Complicated Than That.
  • Cheer21713 hours ago
    sure, if you forget about ether anesthesia, penicillin, synthetic insulin, progestin/estrogen, AZT, SSRIs, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, statins, corticosteroids .....
    • phil213 hours ago
      If they turn the tide on obesity at a population level in the western world, they will be right up there in the top category in how they have changed society at a fundamental level. There is ample evidence this is likely to be the case barring any unforeseen long-term side effects. At an individual level of course the argument gets far more nuanced.

      Time will tell. Reducing obesity rates from 50%+ to 10% would put it firmly in that category for me and most others.

      2 years or so ago I started telling friends that this class of drug will end up being seen as the most important drug development since antibiotics when held against the impact it will have upon western societies. I still stand by that, even ignoring the supposed ancillary benefits aside from simple weight loss.

      The largest negative anyone can point to at the moment is fear of the unknown and the current cost. The latter will resolve itself rapidly - you can already get a weekly dose sourced for less than a cup of coffee if you are feeling a bit more adventurous than most, which suggests the costs will rapidly crash once competition enters the market en-force.

      It would be of course far better to change Western diets and lifestyle - but that is basically solving the impossible. This is the next best thing.

    • lordleft3 hours ago
      If GLP-1 manages to mitigate global obesity, I would say that it would earn a spot against all these other drugs (and maybe even outrank stuff like SSRIs).
    • Vt71fcAqt73 hours ago
      "Important" could be in different ways than just "moral importance." Most previous medecine just helps people recover from illness. This drug may have important social consequences. It could be something like birth control pills.
    • cjrp3 hours ago
      "_Among_ the most important..."
      • Cheer21713 hours ago
        well by that logic, every HN poster is _among_ the most important people in tech
        • BadHumans3 hours ago
          No, we really aren't.
          • speed_spread3 hours ago
            You say that, but the level of discussion here is much higher than most workplaces. It really helps to be able to make sense of what we do, to make the right choices not just technically but ethically. As a community-minded technologist, HN is among the most important resources _I_ have.
          • Cheer21713 hours ago
            Of course not, that's my point. Phrasing it as "among the most important" is marketing doublespeak.
            • some_random3 hours ago
              It can be, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation here at all. There can be (and is) a category of "most important" drug breakthroughs, which is one step above "important", two steps above "notable" etc. Ranking the breakthroughs within their category may be possible but would require a lot of arguing and term definitions, so instead we just say "among the most important".
            • arcticfox3 hours ago
              It does seem like it's among the top 10-20 most important classes of drugs. Different than one among millions.
      • wussboy3 hours ago
        I’ll come in again…
      • throwCursive3 hours ago
        You gotta love a hedge that removes all meaning from a sentence.
        • some_random3 hours ago
          It doesn't though, it's a common english expression to state that the object has extremely high value.
          • throwCursive2 hours ago
            No, it's a common english expression to imply that while avoiding any accountability.
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • Drunkfoowl3 hours ago
      [dead]
  • sasaf53 hours ago
    I find it philosophical that suddenly everyone wants to take a medicine to stop wanting food. "I want to not want, but I can't help but wanting, so I want a medicine to make me stop wanting..."
    • jmull3 hours ago
      Wanting food is a built-in fundament of life. It's hardly comparable, and I doubt dealing with it philosophically leads anywhere.
  • iambateman3 hours ago
    Serious question - is this article sponsored?

    It…feels…sponsored.

    • MPSimmons2 hours ago
      Someone paid the PR firm who helped the article's author, no doubt.
  • dartharva3 hours ago
    Jesus, Ozempic and the weight loss drugs "revolution" are all what the Economist seems to talk about these days. For the past week it's literally the only thing they have been focusing on, world economy be damned.
    • SpecialistK3 hours ago
      By "these days" do you mean "this week's issue"? Last week's cover was literally of a stack of US bills blasting into space to represent the strong US economy. I didn't find the GLP-1 topic interesting at first, but it was worth a read and according to quick scan of the app front page, only 4 of the 38 articles offered.
    • lghh3 hours ago
      I just looked at Economist's landing page and less than 5% of it was centered around Ozempic and related drugs.
    • cloudking3 hours ago
      Makes you wonder who is sponsoring these articles.
      • lghh3 hours ago
        Does Economist have a history of having sponsored articles? Especially ones that are unmarked? If not, why does it "make you wonder"?
  • littlestymaar3 hours ago
    These are drugs designed to fight back against the food industry and its abusive practices which damaged the lives of millions of people without consequences.

    But what will happen from now on? Will the obesity industry cave, or will they try to fight back and overcome the effects of the drugs with even shadier practices? Option 1 sounds overly optimistic to be honest…

    • dylan6043 hours ago
      Fight back against? I would say it is actually enabling. A fight back would be regulations that prevent the food industry from making anything other than food. And no, food product is not food. So this drug doesn't actually fight or make the food industry to change. It allows them to continue operating as they like.
      • littlestymaar3 hours ago
        These drugs reduce the appetite of the people taking it, which drives sales low: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/05/investing/ozempic-food-co...

        But yes, regulating the food industry would have achieved the same health effect than these “miracle drugs” for much cheaper and less adverse effects… But they are too big of a lobby to be targeted by governments unfortunately.

        • dylan6042 hours ago
          So it's a symbiotic relationship to the food industry, not fighting back. In this way, the food industry can continue to earn profits off its products while bigPharma now as a new revenue stream that benefits from results of the food industry's decisions. Again, I do not see this as fighting back in any shape. It's some clever people seeing a way to profit off of the other industry.
          • jf222 hours ago
            An appetite suppressant does not have a symbiotic relationship with the food industry.
            • dylan6041 hour ago
              i'm meant about the company relationship (badly worded) not their end products
    • thefz3 hours ago
      > These are drugs designed to fight back against the food industry

      So you are fighting against big food by rerouting your money to big pharma? What a win...

  • Eumenes3 hours ago
    Ctrl + F "antibiotics", Ctrl + F "penicillin" ... seriously?
  • nameless9123 hours ago
    Okay, here's the thing.

    I Totally get that GLP-1's are absolute medical breakthroughs. But they are a _serious_ societal problem, IMO. My partner and I are both larger-bodied people; both our BMI's (it's a terrible measurement, I'm aware) hover just over 30. We've done a lot of work to destigmatize our own bodies and accept who we are so that we can teach our kids to have healthy self-images and not suffer the dysmorphia that we both went through for decades. We're active, we eat well, and we have great lives; we just aren't _thin_.

    My partner has a new coworker who just started on Wegovy and has been poisoning my partner's brain with her terrible self talk. She calls herself a "fat bitch" at work, and raves about how excited she is to "lose all the fucking weight" before her wedding next fall, and it's bad enough that my partner has had to talk to her manager and HR about it. It's bad enough that my partner broke down the other day and told me she's struggling to see herself as anything other than overweight and unhealthy because the negative sentiment her coworker has of _her_ body is leaking onto everyone else.

    These medications are absolutely essential for _some_ people who need to lose weight for medical reasons or need the other benefits they provide. But, they've also unlocked a cheat code for losing weight, and people like my partner's new coworker are focusing on only that aspect. The potential societal effects of making weight loss easier than ever before are kinda terrifying to me. I don't know what I'll say to my kids if they end up with our body type and come to me one day asking to go on Ozempic or Wegovy because "all the kids at school are doing it" and "being thin is what's normal now". I'm so scared that we've opened up a Pandora's box of making thin even more of an expectation because it's "easy" now.

    I guess my point is, I _really_ wish the FDA would step in and make it clear that these medications are not to be prescribed for cosmetic weight loss, and they should bring the hammer down on online pharmacies like Hers (which is where my partner's coworker got her Wegovy).

    EDIT: there are a bunch of folks in the replies telling me I'm lying to myself and misserving my kids by accepting myself. That's...odd, to say the least. Every metric I have that isn't my weight is perfectly fine. My blood pressure is normal, my cholesterol is normal, my A1C is normal, my blood sugar is normal, my doctor and I are very happy with my health. The number on the scale is _a_ representation of your health, but it's not the only or even best one. And the impact on my mental health has been astounding. I'm not going to change my mind about my weight because a bunch of folks using an extremely outdated metric of overall health tell me my number is bad.

    • ElatedOwl3 hours ago
      > both our BMI's hover just over 30.

      > We're active, we eat well

      Respectfully, you are both obese. If you’re ok with that that’s ok; but to say your diets are appropriate is telling yourself a lie.

      • nameless9123 hours ago
        Respectfully, both of our diets are totally fine, and I don't need your opinion to let me know that. Any biomarker you might like to use tells us that we're fine; our weight is the only number that is "outside the norm", and while sure it's a measure of overall health it's not the only one or even the best one.
        • jf222 hours ago
          What's the best measure of overall health?
      • thefz3 hours ago
        BMI is a shit metric and must be taken with a grain of salt. If you take a not so tall person with a large muscle mass and sub 10% body fat, you can still end up in the severely overweight / obese range.

        Because muscle is way more dense than fat, and we should factor in for bone mineralization and bone weight in those who do resistance sports as well.

        So take BMI = kg/m2 with precaution, as there better metrics such as waist-to-height ratio.

        • phil2137 minutes ago
          You know if you are a BMI outlier. It's not interesting to discuss outliers as they are rare by definition.

          BMI is a fine metric for describing a population's general health when it comes to weight. The actual reason the metric exists.

          There are exceedingly few folks with 10% body fat and a BMI of 30. They tend to be clustered around professional athlete or bodybuilder circles. Again, not interesting to discuss these things outside of niche circles. Those that are outliers know already, due to the work they put in to be such.

          No one is walking around with a BMI of 30 and happening to accidentally be at a healthy weight due to low body fat percentage/high lean muscle mass and not knowing it.

        • baseballdork2 hours ago
          Generally, short buff folks aren't having breakdowns about being overweight and unhealthy.
    • elzbardico3 hours ago
      So, because you actually don't accept yourself as you are, at the same time you made it part of your identity, you want the government to step in and remove other people's choice, their fucking dreams so they don't shatter your fragile ego?
    • jmull2 hours ago
      > are not to be prescribed for cosmetic weight loss

      We don't really know the coworker's medical conditions.

      Also, I'm not sure that achieving a positive self-image isn't worthwhile. With any drug you take, you balance the positives and negatives. I really don't know the negative side effects of these GLP-1 drugs, but if it turns out the negatives are low and the cost isn't too high, I'm really not sure why we'd want to keep people from using them how they want.

    • cjrp3 hours ago
      It reminds me of one of the arguments against assisted suicide, particularly for disabled people. If the option is there, people start to question why you're not taking it (e.g. if you were extremely disabled, why wouldn't you use assisted suicide. If you're overweight, why aren't you using Ozempic).
      • DrillShopper3 hours ago
        This is probably the most ridiculous false equivalence I've ever seen on this site.
        • cjrp2 hours ago
          Could you explain why?
          • DrillShopper47 minutes ago
            Comparing assisted suicide where the goal is to end your life with taking a drug that's generally recognized as safe to lose weight is ridiculous.
    • a-french-anon3 hours ago
      You may want to consider that you (both) are just trying to lie to yourself about this whole acceptance thing, if this what it takes to let it go under the bus.
    • Veen3 hours ago
      That's nice. On the other hand, I'm fat because I eat too much. It makes me unhealthy and less attractive. I welcome GLP-1s and think they definitely should be prescribed for cosmetic weight loss. Others can use whatever psychological coping strategies they deem fit—I'll have the pharmaceuticals.
      • segmondy3 hours ago
        I think the big thing the skeptics miss is that they believe it's only good for wealth loss. But studies is showing that it has massive health benefits that you don't get from dieting alone. Yes, losing weight by workout/dieting improves blood pressure, reduces sugar, and reduces heart disease. But GLP-1 has massive and better effects towards these things. If you just need to lose a few lbs and don't have health issues, go natural.
      • hkt3 hours ago
        Is there actually such a thing as cosmetic weight loss, given the incredible health benefits of being in an optimal weight range?

        Excess weight is tied to pretty much every major cause of mortality and morbidity in the west. The UK's plan to offer Wegovy to unemployed people with complex health problems etc is, leaving aside its many political problems, a great illustration of how this is the case.

        It may just be that tackling obesity lowers the strain on public health systems to such an extent that it is worth it financially, for those countries that have such systems coexisting with high rates of obesity.

      • nameless9123 hours ago
        > it makes me unhealthy

        ...then it's not cosmetic weight loss? I don't think we disagree. If we prescribed these medications the same way we prescribe, say, blood pressure medication, I think I would be less worried. When you have high blood pressure, they of course put you on a medication immediately to get your blood pressure down, but the goal is to reduce the medication over time by helping you work on the underlying cause of the high blood pressure. Some people just have naturally high blood pressure and will need the medication support forever, and that's OK, but many people can engage in lifestyle changes that will give them most of the improvement they need. If we were approaching GLP-1's with the same mindset I think I would be much less worried about the future of our society with these medications.

        And for what it's worth, the above isn't a "coping strategy". It's body acceptance, which has made me a hell of a lot healthier than all the attempts I made at losing weight I didn't really need to lose in order to be healthy and happy.

        • PapaPalpatine3 hours ago
          Speaking from experience, that is exactly how I used and was prescribed Ozempic.

          I stopped eating processed foods and cut nearly all my sugar intake. It was a total lifestyle change and I lost 40 pounds in the process.

          I’ve been off of it for nearly a month and I’ve kept off the weight so far.

          • ZYbCRq22HbJ2y72 hours ago
            > I’ve been off of it for nearly a month and I’ve kept off the weight so far.

            Unfortunately, evidence so far seems to show sustaining weight after discontinuing GLP-1 RAs isn't very common

            • PapaPalpatine1 hour ago
              I am well aware of the evidence and discussed it with my doctor. People WILL gain the weight back if they revert to their old eating and exercise habits.
          • nameless9123 hours ago
            Hey, that's great! I'm really happy to hear that there are patients and doctors out there working together to use this medication correctly.
            • PapaPalpatine3 hours ago
              I think it’s like anything in life: There are people who are going to use it correctly and there are some who are going to abuse it.

              But just because some people abuse it doesn’t mean that it should be avoided entirely.

    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • dartharva3 hours ago
      This anecdote (frankly) sounds very tangential to the discussion.

      Obesity is a genuine clinical disease, not a lifestyle inconvenience.

      Body image issues are usually very personal and not relevant in discussions about eradicating the disease at a macro level.

    • dyauspitr3 hours ago
      I don’t think you should be “destigmatizing” an unhealthy physique.
    • amelius3 hours ago
      Meanwhile around 50% of men in my gym are on TRT for cosmetic reasons. A trend that has been stable for decades.

      Good luck banning this newcomer. At least GLP-1s have health benefits.

      • baseballdork2 hours ago
        I suspect GLP-1s will find their way into the gym as well. I'm currently on a cut. It takes some pretty rigid discipline and some overhead for doing things like meal prep and whatnot. Ozempic is basically the perfect cut supplement. When you hop off it, after a bit your appetite comes back and you can easily go into a bulk. It's perfect.
        • phil2153 minutes ago
          It's already pretty prevalent in gym circles. Not to TRT levels yet, but pretty close. Whomever you get your TRT from (clinic or UGL) you can likely get your preferred GLP-1 from as well.
          • baseballdork30 minutes ago
            Interesting! I assumed that it would be fairly popular in the gym setting, but I had no idea it was already. I don't take gear, but I'd take GLP-1s. It seems like a no-brainer.
        • dyauspitr2 hours ago
          I wonder what its effects are on muscle synthesis
          • baseballdork2 hours ago
            Great question, but unless it’s really detrimental, it wouldn’t be a huge deal. You’re likely going to be losing muscle mass on a cut anyway, you’re just trying to minimize it.
    • CooCooCaCha3 hours ago
      Frankly what you call “destigmatize our own bodies” sounds like lying to yourself over and over until you believe it.

      A BMI over 30 is obese, which is unhealthy in and of itself. It’s great that you try to stay active and eat well but you’re not healthy. And I worry that you’re teaching your kids bad lessons.

      Being obese is also not attractive, sorry but that’s not going to change.

  • nonameiguess3 hours ago
    Does this seriously need to be a first-page discussion topic on Hacker News every single day from now until eternity? Can this just become a pinned thread or part of an FAQ or Wiki or something?

    I say this facetiously knowing Hacker News doesn't have those features, but what do these posts hope to achieve that hasn't already been achieved?

    We'll see some variety of:

    - Isn't it all just because of weight loss? Well, read the damn article because the author sure claims at least some effects don't seem to be because of weight loss.

    - Isn't it all just because of eating less in general being good for you? If you're overweight, sure. If you're weight stable, seemingly you can't just eat less or you'll eventually starve to death.

    - I'm worried about the long-term side effects we don't know about. Well, GLP-1 agonists have been approved for human use as a diabetes treatment for 20 years, so at what point are you expecting these to show up?

    - Isn't this an amphetamine? No, it isn't.

    - Isn't this addictive? No, it isn't.

    - What about all the horrible side effects? The side effect profile for these drugs are among the most mild of all regular use drugs you can take. The few severe effects are incredibly rare and the most common issues with nausea are heavily dose-dependent and tend to go away after a while.

    - Don't you need to increase the dose forever? No, you don't. The Ozempic is pretty low and stays low. The Wegovy dose is much higher but still capped, and if you see increasing dosages, it's because of titration to find the needed amount without overwhelming you all at once and taking more than you need.

    - Why didn't the body just evolve this itself? The human body, all mammal bodies, and possibly other animals do in fact produce GLP-1. It isn't very long-lasting in serum, though, so medical researchers figured out how to make an analog that won't break down in minutes. That's all these drugs are, something your body already makes but a longer lasting version. GLP-1 is, in fact, secreted in response to eating, and is one of the signals the body produces telling you to stop eating when you've had enough. This mechanism seems to be broken for one reason or another in many people, and those people end up obese. Increasing the level exogeneously seems to help, as you might expect.

    Is there anything else that is going to come up? Because it sure feels like the exact same back and forth, every single day.

    • nahnahno3 hours ago
      This is explained in the article:

      “ That does happen, of course, but research shows that it is not the full story. A study of more than 17,600 overweight and obese patients from 41 countries who took semaglutide found that participants lost about 10% of their body weight and had a 20% reduction in serious adverse coronary events, strokes, heart attacks and all-cause mortality. Crucially, these cardiovascular improvements long preceded any meaningful weight loss. ”

      • MPSimmons2 hours ago
        I believe the parent to your comment was ranting that those are the kinds of questions we see again and again in the repeated threads, and they're right about that.
    • rmellow3 hours ago
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • llm_trw3 hours ago
      >- Isn't this addictive? No, it isn't.

      I've heard this one before.

      There's a little thing called the opioid epidemic that started because Oxycodone was meant to be free from the potential to be addictive.

      30 years later - oops.

      I trust medications which haven't become generic less than leaches on any claim they make.

      • jf222 hours ago
        I'd spent a bit more time looking up why the opiod epidemic happened.

        There were a whole bunch of other factors involved outside of a 30 year old marketing slogan.

        • llm_trw2 hours ago
          Feel free to provide sources.
      • MPSimmons2 hours ago
        It may not be psychologically addictive, but there are definite ramifications when my wife misses a dose of Ozempic because the pharmacies are all out of it.
    • MrBuddyCasino3 hours ago
      This is a problem with the nature of sites such as HN, or forums. They live in the present, and there is no mechanism to build up a body of knowledge, every reader has to re-process the whole log himself.
      • dylan6043 hours ago
        > every reader has to re-process the whole log himself.

        You say this like the current readers of HN have been here since the beginning and no new readers have come along since then. New readers come along at some rate I have no idea about, but I'm assuming it to be >0% per day/month/year. These new readers will find something existing readers have already seen and post it because it is interesting to them. This is no different than seeing the same "experiments" every year in 5th grade science fairs.