My perception is that we judge fat people as weak and contemptible and therefore a drug is allowing them to cheat their way out of their sin instead of paying the proper penance (diet and exercise).

It's well known that people treat fat people worse; I constantly wonder how aware people are of their own biases?

For what it's worth I've been fat before and I've been in shape before. I have my own biases that are beyond the scope of this comment. Never taken one of these drugs but only because of cost/access; I'm actually curious to experience them. If they work for people, I say they should take them.

It's not that it's a sin to be fat, it's that there are side effects to taking the short cut, as outlined in the article, which was the point I was trying to make originally.

Ozempic doesn't make you lose weight unless you do a diet. All it does is to make it easy to do a diet by suppressing the craving for food. So it's not like people are losing weight with ozempic while stuffing themselves with burgers.

As for exercise, it has many benefits but is a fairly minor contributor to weight loss. I am doing a bit of a hardcore diet at the moment (helped a ozempic competitor), lost 20kg/44lbs in 3 months, and I noticed no difference in change in weight whether I do 1h of exercise bike daily (max resistance) or whether I do a week without.

Believe me, I'm aware of calories in/calories out, but I've never really found it so simple. Exercise has benefits beyond purely burning calories. And moreover, if you want to change body composition rather than just lose weight, it's important (fitness types have the term "skinny fat" for people who don't weigh much but still have high body fat).

Fat soluable vitamin toxicity? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234920/

Because apparently a surprising number of people can't calculate bodyweight doses.

But gluttony is a sin!

I thought everybody was saying Gluten was bad...

I think it's pretty simple, unfortunately. A lot of folks have this visceral, instinctive horror of fat people, and instead of examining that, they convince themselves that what they actually despise is laziness and gluttony: inner vices expressed outwardly, like a medieval morality play.

But if there's a way to lose weight without major lifestyle change, it threatens that tidy moral barometer. Someone might look virtuous without actually being so. Cognitive dissonance ensues. So they hope and wish for anything to catch out and punish these "cheaters."

> A lot of folks have this visceral, instinctive horror of fat people

Because humans spent some hundred thousand years on earth with no fat human in sight, and only around 3-400 with the ultra obese. It's unnatural.

Case in point.

Cars, computers, and cellphones are unnatural. If you can get over those, you can get over recoiling in atavistic horror from people who don't meet your beauty standards.

> Cars, computers, and cellphones are unnatural

They are not a part of, or the whole human body

> The Ozempic story, for me, has been more about how we almost seem to be reflexively against the idea of a win-win. A lot of people want there to be a tragic downside to the drug for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me.

It's easy, substitute the obese with the smokers demographic. Imagine them whining that they smoke because it's an environmental issue, that they just can't do otherwise, that it's a metabolic issue and not a willpower one, a genetic thing, lack of access to alternatives... anything besides their own will.

I wonder how taking a medicine for the rest of your life is a win-win when there are places in the world where obesity is almost non existent and it's been proven to be largely lifestyle related. Besides, semaglutide just makes the subjects crave less, reinforcing the willpower role in weight loss.

I have read people in this forum state that if they eat less, they gain more weight for some unknown genetical issue, like thermodynamics do not apply to them.

Ever heard of Fen/phen? Was a big thing back in the 90's. Weight loss drug combo that was ultimately found to do major harm.

You have to keep a clear head as an early adopter in some things, and be aware of incentives. Remember, the pharma company pushing the drug/treatment to market is out to make money first. Having a knock-on problem down the line to fix also serves that purpose, and in fact, has been a tactic employed by other notorious pharma manufacturers. Lest we forget the lessons of the opioid crisis do quickly.