So "try harder" isn't going to work when the doctors don't even know what they're talking about.
I'm losing faith in this forum. People would prefer to give people pharma bs because no processed carbs is too much of an ask. Pathetic.
[EDIT] It's not that your approach can't work, it's that if (for example) people had as hard a time following the directions for condoms as they do following diet & workout plans, we'd never allow condoms to be sold as contraceptives, they'd not even be close to being OK to promote as useful for that purpose. It wouldn't matter if a few people could follow the directions and it worked 100% of the time for them.
Anyway, it does work, people just aren't told to do it firmly. Doctors dance around it.
I have been using pullout method for 25 years, very consistently with basically 50 women at this point, and not one pregnancy scare (other than one girl trying to pass off her pregnancy as mine once). Same for many of my friends.
does nothing about stds though.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdr...
For every 100 people who use pull out method perfectly, within a year, 4 will get pregnant. Since not everyone does a great job doing it, in reality 22 get pregnant every year.
Here's a great overview page: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control in summary, condoms are 87% effective at preventing pregnancy, and withdrawal is 78% effective.
For a going-steady couple that isn't worried about STDs, keeps an emergency contraceptive ('morning after pill') ready for oopsie mistakes, and live in a country that grants women bodily autonomy (or have discussed and accepted that a mistake might lead to a child), pullout is a perfectly valid contraceptive mechanism. There are better, but considering that basically every method except a condom/internal condom can cause extreme discomfort or bad side effects to the woman in the relationship, I think it's totally fine to choose pull-out.
And they had 86% adherence for a year. If they'd studied this farther out and it went the same way as basically any study that's done that, adherence would be a lot worse in another couple years. And that's in a group that's exceptionally motivated vs. the general population—has an actual illness they're trying to treat, and has opted in to the study knowing what it's asking of them and for how long.
I am on a GLP-1 level calorie restricted diet right now without a GLP-1 and of course it is just miserable.
I love eating a giant sandwich at night that is more calories than what I am eating all day now but it isn't the taste it is the brain chemical release.
It is an addiction like any other addiction. I have never felt that same craving for chicken breast.
They're morons for the most part.
In their 8 minute session with you, they are worse than chatgpt basically.
If anything it’s somewhat of a lemon market that’s worse than average because it’s not a great career generally to leverage skill into wealth (relatively compared to other options), but it lets risk averse people on rails get a decent outcome.
To spell it out for you: there is value to having some notion of persistent identity even on pseudonymous forums. Anyone can use a throwaway and say anything - and valiantly admitting you're using a throwaway doesn't change this fact.
Use throwaway identity, pay the price.
I'm glad your dad is healthy and yes, carbs cause issues.
Maybe if the anti-carb society offered some payola, the story would be different.
At most a drug rep comes by and brings donuts or something to talk about their new drugs.
Source wife is a doctor.
It’s certainly not enough of an effect that doctors make decisions on what to prescribe based on their malpractice insurance premiums.
There are no healthy habit recommendations anymore in many practices due to anti shame culture etc.
This is different to other parts of the world with healthier citizens.
Doctors are humans though and if people repeatedly ask for a specific treatment some percentage of them will offer it. That’s how drug advertising impacts prescriptions. Nothing to do with liability.
https://www.mdlinx.com/article/a-physician-s-guide-to-accept...
Increased reporting requirements and a cap on the value of these gifts that is far too low for box seats.
My wife's a physician, and I've seen these things change dramatically. Sometimes some food for the whole office will get dropped off. Or donuts. No one's getting box seats to a pro sports game anymore.
Perks for prescriptions is illegal.
If your GF is really keeping score and rewarding doctors for performance, she’s breaking anti kickback laws. All that has to happen is for prosecutor to make the connection.
I know a guy who spent 3 years in prison for something very very close to what you just described. He was just a rep and he said he was just doing what his company told him to do, but they threw him under the bus and now he’s a felon.
If you don’t want a doctor who takes money to run clinical trials, use this database to avoid them. It’s not hard.
> In the 1970s, Jens Juul Holst and Joel Habener began research on the GLP-1 hormone [...] Research continued, and in 1993, Michael Nauck managed to infuse GLP-1 into people with type 2 diabetes, stimulating insulin while inhibiting glucagon and bringing blood glucose to normal levels. However, treating diabetes patients with GLP-1 hormones resulted in significant side effects, leading researchers financed by Novo Nordisk to start looking to develop a suitable compound for therapeutic use. In 1998, a team of researchers at Novo Nordisk led by the scientist Lotte Bjerre Knudsen developed liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that could be used to treat diabetes.
GLP-1 is a hormone that naturally occurs in the human body. Novo Nordisk was responsible for turning it into a diabetes medication. They were responsible for turning it into a weight loss medication.
Where are you getting your facts from?
Other "newcomers" in the GLP-1 space are also showing more promise than what Novo has in the pipeline. Boehringer Ingelheim has Survodutide in the pipeline as well, along with plenty of others.
They're the least interesting game in town when it comes to the incretin mimetics at this point.
> If your solution to the obesity crisis is "people need to try harder" your solution is demonstrably not helpful. Can it work for one person? Yes. Over a population, will it? No
Are you an individual or a population though? Take off the telescopes (and data, and science), and look at the world through your own eyes.
No one needs (or can) to address the obesity crisis in the population. The only crises that can be solved are the ones individuals find in themselves.
Lots of people successfully make changes and lose weight, but exceedingly few manage to keep it low over time.
My assertion is that the success of long term weight changes is not independent from that variable.
There's no evidence to suggest that reading comprehension or scientific aptitude has any link whatsoever to ability to maintain the willpower to stick to a diet. It seems distinctly non-obvious to think it would matter.
And all the evidence is that diets works soo poorly that the effect would need to be astronomical for it to counter-act just how unlikely they are to effect lasting change.
People in the US eat absolute shit. Even the bread is full with sugar.
Good for capitalism if you can feed that to the people and then give them an injection to be healthy again I guess.
Do we have data on that?
I guess you could look at natural experiments, like people who lost and won H1B lotteries, and see if only the ones actually making it to the US get fat?
Individually, there's (previously) been nothing better to suggest than "try harder (and, maybe, smarter)".
Statistically it was almost useless, but it's the best we had. It's not bad advice exactly, it's just extremely unlikely to work for long-term, sustained weight loss.
It also very much appears to be the case that weight gain and loss are heavily influenced by environmental factors. Skinnier countries aren't skinnier because the people there have more willpower, it seems, but because they live in a skinnier country and are surrounded by the culture, laws, physical layouts of the created world, et c., that come with that. It'd be kinda weird if we expected "just try harder" to work very well when that's evidently not the mechanism by which skinny countries are skinny. Alternatively, if it is willpower doing it, we're just adding a step, because then it appears that environment strongly influences willpower, instead, since the same observations hold.
Sure, sometimes it works for individuals. In fact, it often works temporarily, causing a yo-yo effect. It can work for long periods (many years without a slip) but that's rare.
If your solution to the obesity crisis is "people need to try harder" your solution is demonstrably not helpful. Can it work for one person? Yes. Over a population, will it? No, it won't, it's amazingly ineffective, even very expensive high-touch interventions involving multiple experts aimed at weight loss and lifestyle change and such are wildly less effective than "inject GLP-1 agonists" or "move somewhere skinnier".