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?
I don't get this weird thing people do where they act like their bodies don't follow the laws of conservation of energy.
However, not all calories are the same, metabolism is dynamic, and the brain is complex and exerts a powerful influence over behavior.
Increasing exercise will make you hungrier and most people are simply unable to resist this and end up not losing weight. It is why there is a common saying that "you cannot outrun your fork." Restricting calories generally is difficult in today's environment with plentiful calorie dense food everywhere. People don't cook as much as they used to and restaurant meals have more calories than ever.
AFAIK GLP-1 drugs work because they calm the minds desire to eat which is baked in deeply from millions of years of our ancestors struggling to get sufficient food.
When I was working out at Crunch (long after I got kicked out of that other gym) I would go across the street and get two tacos at Taco Bell which is good from the perspective of athletic performance because it puts back the glycogen you use and you'll use the protein to make muscle. But from an energy perspective it's close to neutral.
Muscle is good for you anyway in many ways, not least metabolic and in terms of mental health. I had an elite athlete workload back in the time I was trying to start a business based on foundation models about a decade early and it helped me keep it together though now I have
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23920-athlete...
and my cardiologist told me to exercise less! I am still obese in terms of either BMI or fat percentage but I just saw a specialist for "medical weight loss" (e.g. Zepbound) I was told I had a huge lean body mass and that would help me lose weight. Wearing normal clothes I don't really look fat but in the wrong gym clothes next to the fit 20% of college students I have one hell of a gut.
You can’t really exercise enough to offset the food you can eat in a day, even if you somehow were able to dedicate all your time to exercising you would still have to limit your food intake.
Add to that the fact that exercise is mind numbingly boring and you have to conclude it is not a practical solution at all.
It's odd how people act as tho there's a "moral argument" against using a tool to help reach the goal. It feels a lot like the argument that "morals are from religion", as if you need god to know that murder isn't really a productive activity (unless you work in a slaughterhouse).
I wish American money could go back to having "mind your business" printed on it instead of "in god we trust", it was a huge loss to all of us when that garbage was passed. It was also a huge loss when everyone just decided to go along with saying "taxpayer money" instead of saying "public funds/money", but slippery psychological slopes are everywhere.
More importantly: I don’t want to eat less. I want to eat more. There is so much amazing food.
People racing the Tour Divide, a 2700 mile solo unsupported bikepacking race through the Rocky Mountains, lose weight when riding their bikes 18 hours a day for 2-3+ weeks straight. They describe being unable to choke down enough food even though what they are eating is very calorie dense. Hotdogs, burritos, burgers, pizza, a pound of gummies every day, chocolate milk and ice cream when resupplying, McDonalds where they fill their hydration bladders with PowerAde, anything they can get their hands on quickly when they arrive at a small mountain town which frequently has nothing more than a gas station.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/tourdivide/posts/24754803527...
Obviously not a practical solution as you say but they do exercise enough to offset the food when eating as much as they can.
It’s not practical in the least for the average office worker to outrun the fork. It’s just silly advice and pointless to even bring up. When it takes an hour or more of treadmill work to cancel a single donut you don’t need to think about it any longer than that.
You exercise for health. Not to lose weight. Until you are at the margins and can consistently create an extra 100-200 calorie deficit by walking for an hour every evening or whatever.
My three gym days a week don’t do much for the scale. Those are for physical and mental health. The weight part is in the kitchen.
This is not true. There are plenty of activities that a healthy, enthusiastic person can do for quite a few hours per day that burn calories rapidly, and it takes serious effort to eat enough to offset the calorie usage. Think distance running, skiing, cycling, rowing, etc.
Sometimes people go to extreme technological measures to optimize their ability to consume calories (see recent record-setting marathon results). Sometimes people rely on extremely calorie-dense foods (butter, nuts, etc) so they can carry meals with them that are not wildly calorie-deficient for their long, unsupported travels.
When people are burning calories at this rate, they are probably not doing it for exercise — they’re probably either doing it because it’s fun or it’s part of an adventure.
I’m suspect that, if someone is overweight but in good enough shape to cross-country ski for six hours a day, then even if their body tends toward telling them to eat too much, they could probably lose weight by doing so for many days in a row.
Most people though will just eat more when they exercise, though dieticians say that more muscle is good for your metabolism and almost everybody would benefit from getting in some cardio and weights (i'm one of the rare exceptions who's been told to moderate my exercise, but I am the kind of person who can't understand how other people can make it through the day without going to the gym.)
People at the extreme end can struggle to eat enough food to maintain body condition, like I had a friend in college who trained for ultramarathons and you couldn't pinch anything on him even though he was eating all the time. Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was a representative for the blockbuster heartburn medication Prilosec because he was burning 10,000 calories a day on his side!
That doesn't make it an easy thing to do.
Fat people are aware of diet and exercise. They aren't stupid.
Until you have been chronically obese, or helped someone that is chronically obese, you don't understand that it is a deeply rooted subconscious issue, not a physics issue.
Fat people don't want to be fat, anymore than depressed people want to be sad. But something in their minds or bodies makes it non-optional. Pharmaceutical interventions change that thing.
When people - in their millions - say that this is the only effective thing, you could, I dunno, believe them. Or at least believe the pharmacological/medical science, which is, to circle back, all just physics.