So has anyone managed to separate the effects of semaglutide from the effects of weight loss?
If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker - lots of people have been overweight for a century now, so literally 10's of millions of people could have been saved from dementia had action been taken 100 years ago.
It’s in broad terms weight loss related. More specifically blood glucose and insulin regulation which can be out of whack even if you’re not diabetic on paper. This is why you’ll see people claiming they’re not diabetic but still saw improvement from Ozempic and friends. Their insulin and glucose regulation was spoke. in casual terms “fucked”.
GLP-1 receptor agonists such as semaglutide act partly through the brain to reduce hunger, increase satiety, and lower spontaneous energy intake. Sustained caloric reduction produces weight loss, including loss of visceral fat around the abdominal organs and ectopic fat stored in tissues such as the liver. These fat depots are metabolically active and contribute to insulin resistance through excess fatty-acid delivery, inflammatory signalling, and disruption of normal insulin action.
As they shrink, muscle and liver tissues become more responsive to insulin, so the pancreas no longer needs to secrete as much insulin to maintain normal glucose levels.
This reduces the compensatory hyperinsulinaemic state that can exist for years before diabetes develops and decreases the probability that impaired glucose regulation will progress toward overt type 2 diabetes.
Those changes propagate into the cardiovascular system.
Better insulin sensitivity and lower visceral and liver fat are commonly accompanied by lower triglycerides, improved blood pressure, reduced systemic inflammation, and better endothelial and vascular function, thereby reducing several mechanisms that contribute to atherosclerosis and cerebrovascular injury.
GLP-1 receptor agonists also have a direct metabolic action independent of weight loss: when glucose is elevated, they enhance pancreatic insulin secretion and suppress inappropriate glucagon secretion, improving glucose control without forcing insulin secretion when glucose is low.
The overall effect is therefore a combination of an immediate GLP-1-mediated improvement in appetite and glucose regulation followed by progressively larger downstream effects from weight and fat loss, which together reduce the metabolic and vascular abnormalities associated with cardiovascular disease and, over much longer periods, potentially with dementia risk.
TLDR: Being fat is very very unhealthy, and all the culture around fat acceptance is a disgrace and an insult to our intelligence.
I have some individual anecdotal evidence. I spent a long time, basically a year, relatively heavy but on a very small dose of GLP drugs due to tolerability issues, and my labs improved dramatically, to a degree we redid them out of disbelief, even without weight loss. I believe one of the suspected underlying causes is reduction in fatty liver despite constant body weight and composition, and also inflammation reduction directly through GLP influence in other areas of the body.
I'm not great evidence because N=1 and all the confounders, but I found that it absolutely made me much healthier without weight loss. I then went on to increase the dose slowly and have lost a bunch of weight and my labs improved even more, which I attribute mostly to the body mass reduction.
Similar experience here on minimal dose of GLP-1. There is definitely something going on here other than "you are just losing weight and that's really why you are healthier".
With my labs at my current weight you can not tell that I am a type 2 diabetic. Previously, when I was at this very same weight in the past - all my labs indicated I was prediabetic.
Could be just because you stopped eating bad food. Things improve dramatically once you limit your intake of industrialized food.
Not that dramatically. Things like fatty liver take a long time to reverse. It’s not like you stop eating junk food and then suddenly your body is chilling. No, the damage is done and takes a long time to repair. It’s like smoking. You can benefits from quitting smoking within 20 minutes. But to reach the full benefit and reversal, you need 15 years.
There are other significant factors beyond the ones you mentioned, such as inflammation due to processed foods, certain oils, and more that are common in industrialized medicine.
Plenty of anecdata of people who stopped eating certain categories of food and certain conditions they had for a long time went away. In my son's case, a severe case of eczema that persisted for years went away in a matter of weeks after we significantly reduced the amount of hydrogenated oil products available to him to eat.
Sure enough, when we would visit my mom's place which had it, and he'd indulge, the symptoms came back. Same thing when we would buy it at home and he's splurge, he'd have the same problems recur. Cutting it out of the diet is the only thing that correlated highly with the absence of the condition. This happened even after a move from one state to another.
One case, not proof, but definitely repeatable in our circumstances. I have heard a LOT of similar stories. Is it proof? No, but it's an amazingly easy thing to try. It's takes an adjustment, but it intuitively makes sense. Processed food of today is something our ancestors wouldn't even recognize as food. It's just not what our bodies were designed to handle. Some can handle it better than others, but such a processed food and artificial sugar-heavy diet can't be called natural or even healthy.
A lot of this largely is not true. People think that paleothic humans ate a lot of meat - they did not. They ate very little meat, we eat the most meat we’ve ever eaten now.
And the meat they did eat was lean game meat. It was high in unsaturated fats - like our modern day oils. Not like a steak. A steak is a product of farming. It’s a new invention, <10,000 years. Prior, humans ate almost exclusively nuts, fruits and foliage.
Yes oils are “refined”, but humans have been eating unsaturated oils predominantly for almost all of our existence. The proliferation of animal fats is very, very new. Really, it’s past 100 years. Before that meat was rare, it was a delicacy, very expensive for people.
Now, high sugar is a different story. But the oil thing is complex, it’s not as a simple as oil bad animal fat good and natural. No, it’s very unnatural.
No idea where you're getting this from. The paleolithic was during an ice age full of big fatty game like sloths, mammoths, and so on. Some believe we hunted these animals to the point of extinction with a tiny population, which would imply a very high level, arguably unbelievably high, of consumption of meat. Even if we didn't hunt them to extinction we certainly did engage in relatively large scale hunting and consumption of vast quantities of them, which already largely falsifies your concept.
Meat only became more of a luxury in the agricultural age where we started squeezing more and more people into smaller and smaller regions which meant there was no longer enough to go around. So plebs got the carbs, and royalty got the protein. FWIW you can also see this in the groups that have ancient traditions dating back far into the past, like the various tribal groups in Russia, Mongolian nomads, etc. Meat, and many highly creative ways of preserving it [1], remain the majority of their diet. They probably don't date back to the paleo, but at least far back enough to falsify the claim that animal fats are even remotely novel.
[1] - https://www.rbth.com/russian-kitchen/334150-dish-kill-kopalk...
This isn't true, fatty liver can improve very quickly. Where are you getting "15 years" from?
The 15 years is for smoking. Fatty liver can improve but it’s not gonna be a one day thing. It’s a consistent lifestyle change.
Also, simply cutting out junk food will absolutely not reverse fatty liver. You need to eat less and lose weight.
A lot of metabolic stuff is due to insulin and insulin sensitivity. This drives pretty much everything. Insulin sensitization is pretty terrible and it gets more important as you age. Unfortunately natural selection doesn't need to fix this as it doesn't cause issues until after reproduction and often until after your grandkids are born.
Semaglutide and glp1s resensitize it which is why they have these effects.
My opinion
I really wish my insurance would cover GLP-1s, because I think reduction in fatty liver and other ancillary benefits, along with the weight loss, would be medically helpful for me.
I was paying $1400 a month of my GLP-1 (on top of the $2400 monthly health insurance premium). I eventually just bought a batch from a reputable online compounding pharmacy for a very small fraction of that (about 12 months of meds at a time), and send one of the vials in for testing at a mass spectrometer for about $500.
Would you mind sharing the online pharmacy and the testing facility you used?
I've been wary of using online pharmacies due to concerns with knowing what's legitimate and what's not, so maybe a recommendation would help.
If you don't want to share publicly, can you put you contact info in your profile and I'll reach out to you?
I've been given a sheet of prices for self-pay in the U.S. and they range from $150 to $350 for the lower doses (the oral versions are $150, the injections $300 and $350). These are not online prices, just local pharmacy prices.
I thought they closed whatever loophole that let compounding pharmacies do GLP1s, but I suppose online there are ways around that.
[flagged]
> So has anyone managed to separate the effects of semaglutide from the effects of weight loss?
In general? Yes. For this specific thing? We haven't even really shown the effects matter for humans.
> If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker - lots of people have been overweight for a century now, so literally 10's of millions of people could have been saved from dementia had action been taken 100 years ago.
Public health has been banging the drum on obesity for decades now. But humans on the whole aren't built to be able to resist hyper palatable calorie dense cheap foods.
We're too soft on companies, but equally too hard on people who have a food addiction.
We don’t teach children accountability. We teach adults the opposite.
Body acceptance movements («it’s sexy to be obese»), a social safety net built around supporting the people taking the least responsibility for their lives (like drug addicts), and a culture celebrating incompetence and throwing merit out the window in the name of DEI.
Is it really a surprise a large percentage of the population is obese, stupid and unwilling to change? It’s simply a fundamentally bad incentive structure on a western societal level.
Nah, we’re still too soft on people. It’s really not hard to eat a healthy diet.
As someone who has experienced so many different sides of this, you have zero clue the degree to which your appetite and ability to suppress it is hormonal until you get hormonally compromised (and then fix it, in my case, happily)
Blaming individuals for a public health crisis affecting 40% of the population is absolutely silly. There are a lot of individuals like me, who overeat behaviorally, but that doesn't explain the scale of the issue. maybe 8-10% of the population has some sort of eating disorder, the other 30% are just regular people eating an american diet.
40% in a specific country
Ignorant comment.
I think this is easy to say as a healthy eater (I am one too, always have been). However, unlearning a lifetime of bad habits is hard. But yeah, it's costing nations billions that could be better spent.
It's not just habits. It changes the composition of your gut microbiome, hormones, etc. All of that can make changing your diet much harder than one might think.
If it’s not too hard why are people not doing it?
Because not doing it is even easier.
Well now we’ve just moved the goal posts with the “easy” and “hard” labels on them, and nothing of value was said.
It's really not hard to not drink. It's really not hard to not do heroin. It's really not hard to...
Those are easier in many ways as you don't need heroin or alcohol to survive and can avoid it completely
If it's hard or not is more of a philosopical question about how much free will we have as people. Statistically they're all hard and not over-eating is the hardest.
Culturally and individually we do a lot of things that probably make the food one even harder
If you drink too much, the common answer is that you need to stop drinking. If you eat too much, we are very reluctant to talk about how you need to eat less. We prefer to talk about how it's someone else's fault and how powerless we are to do anything about it, including comforting lies about how eating less wouldn't work anyway, or how being overweight isn't bad really.
It can be very hard to eat a healthy diet if you're poor or if you live in a food desert, or you have a dietary restriction, or some allergies...
And it becomes even harder when you mix any of those two criteria, let alone more. Then factor in your environment. It is way easier to eat healthily in Italy than in the US. (Maybe that is what you meant with Food desert.)
I disagree on the “if you’re poor”. I find eating healthy cheaper.
You can prepare healthy meals from basic and cheap foodstuffs like vegetables, whole grains and legumes, eggs, low cost meat cuts etc. You can prepare delicious meals for under $1 each.
Buying prepared unhealthy foods is what is expensive.
You know what, I'm coming back to this even after replying once.
People fucking die from obesity every fucking day.
And all you can do is be callous and say "it's not that hard i'm a body builder hurhur." Well so am I. So are a lot of people. The only reason you think that is impressive is because you're a fucking loser edgelord.
It's a disease that kills people. It contributes to like 15% of all deaths in the USA. It ruins people's lives, it makes them suffer.
Would you say this about cancer? It's at about 20% of deaths.
You're not just ignorant. You're pathetic.
i feel like close to half the adult population having an eating disorder has to be chocked up to a bug in the human brain at some point.
we evolved to eat caloric foods, in case of a famine that will never happen in the modern world.
I think we are too soft on people and we let dirtbags get away with way too much in the US but saying "its not that hard" is a cop out.
we get it you're a macho conservative. nobody cares.
My wife has hardly lost any weight from Zepbound but she went from having such intense back spasms she could maybe walk a few hundred feet at a time to being able to easily handle a week at the Disney World parks on foot. Before she had to rent a motorized scooter. Absolutely life changing for her.
That's awesome!
All my immediate family members are obese. I'm not (BMI 24.5, borderline overweight at the high end of normal, highest lifetime BMI was 29.5), but that's through strenuous, exhausting effort over decades. I also exercise regularly, though I've learned over time how disconnected exercise is from weight management.
At my weight, I'm not a candidate for going on a GLP-1. I'm sure I could find an unethical doctor to prescribe it if I looked hard enough, but I don't want to have the downsides hidden from me.
My weight has been steadily ratcheting up over the years, since I don't have as much room in my life as I used to for living with the discomfort of caloric deficit. If that continues, I will probably become a candidate for GLP-1s, like my immediate family members, just after a decade or so of possibly unneeded striving.
Lots of people are in situations far worse than mine, so I don't feel unlucky — but it would be nice if there were a clearer path forward. While lowering risk for Alzheimer's is not a priority for me, other effects of GLP-1s sound extremely enticing — especially reports of reduced food craving.
Speaking as someone who had the same kind of reservations, I think you sound exactly like me, and if I had any advice to my past self, it would be "get on it as early as it's available, start much lower than anyone thinks is sane, and never ever stop".
I got a concierge doctor who absolutely evaluates what I ask for skeptically, and pay for my GLP medications out of pocket, so I feel ethically totally comfortable with this position. The downsides are real and significant, it's not a "fun" medication, but just the change in how I feel is worth every penny, let alone the massive reduction in heart attack risk, liver enzyme numbers, and so on.
What downsides have you experienced?
I personally found that it seemed to globally lower any kind of reward-seeking behavior - initially it was alcohol (didn't make a dramatic difference for food), but pretty quickly I quit the running habit I'd had for years. My resting heart rate shot up, my heart rate variability plumetted, and a couple months in I stopped feeling motivated to get out of bed in the morning. I lost about a half a pound a week, which was lower than I had by calorie counting in the past.
Quit the Wegovy and added a low dose of bupropion, and all of that reversed in a month.
I am overweight, not obese, have an A1C of 4.7, and run regularly. I've never had food noise. YMMV.
Mine were mainly around bloating and abdominal pain, but I solved it by spacing the doses out further to once every 10 days (I'm already about as low as you can get at 1mg without making it difficult to measure accurately in the normal insulin syringe). My working theory is some people don't clear the drug as fast as the modeled rate, so once every 7 days starts to slowly accumulate. I didn't have symptoms until after 12 weeks on a weekly dose.
Gastrointestinal - nausea, extreme fullness, paradoxically both rapid and slow transit (I recommend lots of fiber, but that will make you too full too), bloating, all kinds of negative stuff, and obviously if you're on a calorie deficit because you get full off a single bite of food you're going to have low energy and feel pretty garbage on that front (thus ramp slowly), but also some jitteryness, all manner of things. I would call the first week on a tiny dose something like a very mild GI bug or flu, in terms of everything I experienced.
That said, I'm extremely prone to side effects, most people I know who have tried them started at maybe half the standard dose and had zero side effects at all. I'm the best possible guinea pig for these things, because if I can tolerate it, almost anyone who isn't frankly allergic or something can.
The other downside, obviously, is injections - you will need to learn how to use sterile technique to inject yourself or pay the incredibly high costs for the pens. The pills are also an option but I have no personal experience and their bioavailability is so low I don't know that I fully trust them.
They will completely change your relationship with food and alcohol, too. Your tastes will probably shift, nearly everybody I know who is on them has essentially given up booze (maybe a couple drinks a year, more or less)
In my experience, basically all downsides can be solved by lowering the dose, and not escalating dosages as fast as the doctors tell you.
Why wait?
If you feel unable to fix your diet without it, and you think it's safer to get on it, why not make it happen?
> I'm sure I could find an unethical doctor to prescribe it if I looked hard enough
I'd say the only unethical doctors here would be the ones not prescribing it for you based on your description of your life and needs.
Guidelines are guidelines, not strict rules for a reason. BMI is not the end-all measurement to decide if you are a candidate for these drugs.
Find a competent doctor who understands GLP-1s and you might be surprised.
That is the question now. Some studies have some early evidence that GLP-1s might reduce inflammation markers a little more than weight loss alone.
Giving GLP-1s to normal weight people doesn’t work well because they can have to work harder to maintain their weight. That can be a real problem as people get older where maintaining muscle mass is important for quality of life and longevity. I remember how hard it was to keep some of my grandparents at a healthy weight, so adding a GLP-1 to a non-obese elderly group is a no-go for study purposes. Going to be hard to separate these effects out.
I'm normal weight and am on a low dose (1mg every 10 days) of tirzepatide. I'm able to maintain my weight at this dose, and I've seen improvements in inflammation and other blood markers as well. It's not impossible, it's just difficult to do within the normal health system parameters (specific dosages tested for weight loss, etc.). I use a gray market supplier direct from China and reconstitute the dose myself.
My assumption was that GLP-1's don't suppress appetite so much as suppress the compulsion to eat when not necessary/more than necessary?
They also clearly have some impacts on metabolism. It’s well known that a challenge with dieting isn’t just eating less, it’s metabolic changes that make weight loss harder. GLP-1’s avoid that.
They do slow down the metabolism, yes.
They seem to also act on some reward mechanism - making some stuff (not just food. Alcohol, gambling, porn, smoking, other drugs have anecdotally been reported to feel less attractive / addictive) have a reduced pull on one's will. They also measurably delay gastric emptying - to the point that some medicines, meant to be taken on an empty stomach, are not safe to take within up to 3 hours from the last meal, compared to one hour or so for other people.
It’s not clear to me that they slow down metabolism consistently, although that does seem to be the effect in some people.
I rather think the opposite is true, that by increasing signals that the body is satiated in many cases it is avoiding a metabolism slowdown caused by hunger.
> metabolic changes that make weight loss harder
Which are vastly overblown. I diet every year as part of bodybuilding, at a range of intensities and durations, and have never had issues with sudden metabolic changes that make it harder to lose weight.
That’s very nice for you, but it is a phenomenon that is well documented by research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4989512/
Your body naturally tries to maintain homeostasis. When you cut your food supply below what your average is, and probably has been for years, your body will fight you in every way it can.
For example, I eat too much and started eating less. I now eat normal portions instead of portions fit for 2 people. I have more than enough food and energy, and yet, I am hungry. The hunger is fake, I certainly don’t need more calories. But my body thinks it does based off of its knowledge.
See that’s the problem. What works for you doesn’t work for others like me that have tried dieting. It’s the food noise that’s the problem and it’s a mental issue. Glp-1 has helped me a lot. The metabolic changes are kind of insane. Even doing keto which did help lose weight didn’t have this kind of effect on me.
That’s nice. Many peoples’ experience differs. Congrats on it working on your computer.
Personally on the whole I’ve had no issues with controlling my weight. I’ve had a couple of isolated instances where I felt hungry all the time and started gaining weight rapidly despite my best efforts. Circumstances changed and it stopped. It sucked and I learned a new level of empathy for the people who get this all the time and not just as a one off.
Bodybuilding, eh? That makes you vastly more likely to believe in bro-science.
What is appetite?
It’s both. That’s why it’s so effective.
With all the research into dementia and its causes, if there was a simple strong link to overweight I can't imagine that would not stand out in the data and be well known by now.
Edit: although, there are well-known links between overweight and a lot of negative outcomes, and yet people are still too fat.
Nearly 75% of Americans are overweight. (over 30% 'overweight', over 40% 'obese').
Obviously, 75% of Americans do not develop dementia. Do more who are overweight develop dementia than those who are not? Well...it's hard to say when 3/4ths of the population is overweight.
Actually that makes it really easy to tell. If one side were very rare maybe we’d miss a subtle effect. But at 3:1 we should see plenty!
[dead]
Semaglutide was invented in the early 2000s. Weight loss is an extremely complicated and societally mediated problem that we didn't have a 'cheat code' like this for until recently.
Semaglutide was patented only in 2018. The previous medication was liraglutide.
It behaved similarly but had a half-life of only a few hours. It required daily injections, and you could feel its effects wax and wane throughout the day.
> So has anyone managed to separate the effects of semaglutide from the effects of weight loss?
I was looking for that in particular. The study does say:
"To assess whether the observed effect was mediated by weight reduction, we performed a sensitivity analysis adjusting for change in BMI from baseline to week 104. In this adjusted model, the treatment effect coefficient was attenuated from β −0.092 to β −0.066 (P < 0.001), corresponding to a reduction of 28% in the estimated effect size. This attenuation indicates that 72% of the treatment-associated difference in 20-year dementia risk persisted after accounting for BMI change, suggesting that mechanisms beyond weight loss contribute to the observed proteomic signature modification."
What should public health have done differently?
Treat junk food like cigarettes
What is junk food? For example — are cheeseburgers and French fries junk food? What about when you make them at home, or at a fancy restaurant without artificial ingredients? Is it certain additives? If McDonalds makes a happy meal without additives, is it no longer junk food?
What does treat them like cigarettes mean? Tax them? Ban them within 15 feet of a building entrance? Put warning labels? Is giving or selling French fries to children a crime? Does this apply to food made at home?
Most of the time when people try to define healthy food vs. junk food in a fair and unbiased way, the line gets drawn at "whole foods" vs "processed foods".
A typical burger meal is definitely processed food because the meat is processed mechanically and mixed from different sources (usually with added fat); the bun is made from refined flour and refined oils; and the fries are thinly-cut potatoes blanched and fried in more refined oils. (Not to mention a whole bunch of chemical additives which are the norm rather than the exception; and "hyperpalatability" tweaks which means the food is formulated to taste unnaturally good.)
You could perhaps argue that a home-made burger meal made using whole cuts of meat, a lean wholemeal bread dough, and potatoes roasted in animal fat could count as a healthy/whole food meal, but it would taste different to the typical hamburger meal we all associate with fast food.
Fast food also has an enormous marketing industry behind it which pushes it in unhealthy volume, with maximum convenience, and at (until recently, at least) affordable prices.
Why does grinding the meat at home make a huge difference vs grinding it in a factory? Depending on the cut you choose, the condiments you add, and the portion size, a hamburger at home could be Lot less healthy than a McDonald’s burger. McDonald’s patties don’t have any fillers afaict.
The point is that “junk food” is a pretty amorphous and vague category. If you want to enforce portion or calorie restrictions you can do that, but it would have to be way more encompassing of a regulation than targeting “junk food”
The additives to the meat. Has to retain its color, be preserved, and they also add pink slime to it. McDonald’s adds soy, I believe, and there are all kinds of other things that go into it. If you grind your meat at home you’re going to get some delicious burger.
Heh, grind your meat
[dead]
> For example — are cheeseburgers and French fries junk food? What about when you make them at home, or at a fancy restaurant without artificial ingredients? Is it certain additives? If McDonalds makes a happy meal without additives, is it no longer junk food?
Yes, this is all junk food. It's not that difficult.
Eaten in moderation these things are fine. But they are highly palatable calorie dense meals that are not great for you over time and in huge quantity. A burger is generally speaking a burger, regardless of how fancy. Deep fried stuff is deep fried, regardless of the cut of the vegetable or how organically it was grown.
Your latter question is far more interesting to me. I don't have a solution for that really. Society gets what society demands. I don't know how you'd fix those incentives without seriously horrible second and third order effects.
Lean ground beef, bread, cheese, and a small salad are not “junk food” in themselves, but when you stack them into a cheeseburger they become junk food. Meanwhile salad entrees at several restaurants have more calories, sodium, and sugar than a Big Mac, but would be seen as healthy choices.
The reason point 2 is hard is because it’s really difficult to actually draw the line between normal food and junk/ultraprocessed foods in a way that can regulated. You can give guidelines on what a balanced diet should look like and warn away from excess consumption of certain foods, but bans or restrictions are hard.
Well, except for maybe sodas
Like cigarettes, simply ban the advertising.
(to all the boolean questions): yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
People have tried. Any time the government tries to do anything a substantial portion of the electorate throws a childish hissy fit and tries to make out that the Bolsheviks are coming to make their fries less tasty for no good reason.
What's interesting is that it's different parts of the electorate that get upset. When Republicans wanted to make junk food/soda ineligible for food stamps, Dems got upset. And when Dems wanted to tax large sodas, Republicans/libertarians got upset.
I think the former makes much more sense than the latter, since it is literally being funded by the govt. That's a reasonable first step, or possibly only step, especially considering that most people on food stamps are also on govt-funded/subsidized healthcare (meaning taxpayers will end up footing the bill when they require expensive treatments resulting in part from an unhealthy diet).
This is a pretty insincere take.
Feel free to elaborate on my alleged insincerity. Was I insincere in noticing that there are partisan patterns at play, or insincere when pointing out that the govt should have more control over govt-run/taxpayer funded programs, as opposed to transactions between private parties?
I am sincerely curious to know your opinion.
[flagged]
You obviously do not know what the word "sincere" means. Please look it up before posting further.
Replying to your edit:
Amazing that you again allege insincerity, with zero evidence. You then go on to make false claims about what I said and avoid the obvious point that my problem is not with the historical figure that you quoted, but the fact that you injected race into a conversation that was about food.
As for whether you violate the HN guidelines, the number of your recent comments that are greyed out tends to indicate that I'm not the only one who thinks you're out of step here.
How does any of this make my comment insincere? Even if I agreed with it, I wouldn't understand how it proves your original accusation.
I also don't love your injection of flame-bait racial comments, which probably violate HN guidelines.
And have a real conversation around Corn syrup.
Even today, a Soda with 'real sugar', at least for me, is far more satiating for thirst or a 'quick sweet treat' than the same brand/'flavor' using corn syrup, that includes both the big chains as well as the local names.
If I drink a soda with sugar in it, I usually wind up wanting water after. If I drink something with corn syrup, I usually just want more of whatever I just had.
Research results notwithstanding, my anecdata suggest that sugar soda tastes better, and I am not quite sure why. I think it might have better flavor overtones or better mouth feel or something. Less gluey somehow even though there shouldn't be any difference. Maybe the sugar recipes are better in ways unrelated to the sweetener (and bottled soda is also usually better than canned, but fountain sugar soda still seems better than fountain corn syrup soda) or maybe the processing is subtly different.
Is there evidence supporting the idea that sugar is more satiating? My understanding was that they were equally unhealthy
No, the evidence is that there is no significant difference in satiety. HFCS is 55% fructose / 45% glucose, while sucrose is 50% fructose / 50% glucose.
Well, There's at least this as a start... https://nutrition.org/sugars-created-equal-lets-talk-fructos...
Not saying Sugar itself is much better, however, yes, there is research indicating that the two are metabolized differently, so that difference in composition should be considered.
I am entirely unconvinced that a 5% difference in fructose vs. glucose is a meaningful difference.
They carry the same health risks if eaten in the same amounts. The only thing that corn syrup could be blamed for here is being too cheap so it shows up in greater quantity and in more products than cane sugar might otherwise.
HFCS is just one of those fashionable things to be "concerned" about so we can all miss the forest through the trees.
yeah that was my understanding. for some reason corn syrup is vilified. the real problem there (as I understand it) is corn subsidies.
Real sugar in your soda pop? What are you, a health nut? Must be a real my body is a temple sort.
Seriously though, it's a dogshit thing to consume whether it is sweetened with HFCS or sucrose.
"Even today, a Soda with 'real sugar', at least for me, is far more satiating"
Did you know that in the acidic environment of a cola, sucrose quickly degrades into fructose and glucose (and if it didn't, your enzymes literally immediately crack sucrose into them). You know, exactly the same fructose and glucose that would be added by HFCS. The proportions differ a tiny amount, but this notion that one is satiating and the other isn't should really send you down a path of self-discovery, where you determine how you fell for nonsense.
The idea that there’s some magic ingredient that makes soda a healthy choice is why discussion of “Junk food” Is so weird
Unfortunately in most countries the blocker is politics, not the desire of public health officials to do anything. See the current US admin going after vaccines while declaring open season for peptides.
this is exactly right. We've got this society that readily accepts unpleasantness as what you need to do to get ahead(I'll question that but it's beside the point). People regularly accept suffering of all sorts. However, ask someone to eat a boring meal. that's a hard no. So, you've got large parts of society that won't accept that perhaps they shouldn't eat like children.
Tax fat people. No, I'm not joking. Especially in countries with some sort of socialist health system.
GLP-1s seem like a night and day difference in intervention adherence though. For various obvious and non-obvious reasons, it’s very hard to produce an intervention that people will adhere to to make the test group lose weight.
that is the interesting question. also the effects of weight loss vs. the effects of disengagement with the engineered to be addictive "food products" side of the western diet.
What is interesting about it?
Proper sleep, eating less (including liquid calories), and exercising have been the mainstream medical advice for many decades.
Obviously, most people can’t accomplish that for whatever reason, so another solution was needed.
> What is interesting about it?
did western society engineer a junkfood-industrial-complex so addicting and so en-sickening that it ultimately required a sort of junk food methadone to wean itself off?
I mean kinda yeah
Even more so. Not absolute weight loss but the effect of loss of the systemic inflammation due to a surplus of visceral fat which has significantly more systemic effect than subcutaneous fat or other types of loss of mass.
I'm not overweight but I've been thinking about getting a low does glp-1 for the supposed inflammation improvements which could be neuroprotective. The side-effects seem minor and if it doesn't agree with me, I can just stop since I'm not using it for weight control.
I've never really read much about people using it in this way though and I'm somewhat risk averse, so it's easy for me to keep procrastinating on getting the prescription.
Alzheimers dementia is sometimes called type 3 diabetes, so it may be both.
> If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker
Public health has been trying to get obese people to lose weight forever, what are you talking about. We've known it's bad in enough other ways. It was just really, really hard (at a population level).
Dementia aside, there are plenty of very obvious reasons we should have been discouraging obesity and encouraging healthier eating and lifestyle habits.
Lobbies and general government ineptitude have been a problem longer than obesity and that one needs to be solved first.
But... the profits!
>> If this is caused by the weight loss, it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker
I imagine people hundred years in the future will think of our current society rightfully as dumbfucks. But should we be surprised? 50 years ago women didn't have voting rights; homosexuals were incarcerated in western societes; all because of moral and power implications of some powerful men. Not much different with Semaglutide.
>50 years ago women didn't have voting rights
Where are you? In the US, women have had full voting rights for over 100 years.
I think you need to read up on why the civil rights act was necessary and the things it fought for. Woman's suffrage was fought for a long time ago, but that does not mean it was universally applied.
Many many times in US history we've said something is true, but put some big asterisks after them. Slavery is over (except it's definitely still permitted in the US), it's illegal to discriminate based on race (except we allowed redlining for generations and arguably are still fighting it), rape is illegal (unless it's your spouse, then it was legal until '93. And a lesser crime still in much of the country).
Voting is no different. Heck, one might argue we still don't have universal suffrage. People who want to vote but because we've put barriers like underfunding stations, long lines, not giving time off to vote, etc. we're clearly preventing some types of people.
No, black woman (among many other minorities) certainly didn't. I guess that part isn't taught in american schools as thoroughly as it should be.
If you're seriously claiming black women didn't have the right to vote in 1976, you should probably provide some evidence rather than snide remarks.
Then teach us.. when did they got actual voting rights? (i'm not trying to be snarky but sometimes it' not easy seeing the level of history ignorance in society)
Federally? 1920.
When did all the voter suppression become illegal? 1965.
I can't help but notice that you're still providing absolutely no evidence for an extraordinary claim.
> I imagine people hundred years in the future will think of our current society rightfully as dumbfucks. But should we be surprised? 50 years ago women didn't have voting rights
Good news: the readers of your post don't have to wait 100 years to have that thought.
it is a little disappointing that public health didn't act quicker - lots of people have been overweight for a century now, so literally 10's of millions of people could have been saved from dementia had action been taken 100 years ago
Given that the drug did not exist until only recently and it took decades to develop with the latest of technology, I don't see how this could have been possible. Stomach surgery has been around for 50 years though, but it's a bigger undertaking than an injectable drug.
Well, if you consider that is much cheaper to eat trash than healthy, and that food companies' only interest is in maximizing profit, you have what we have.
I don’t consider that since it’s simply not true.
When I grew up relatively poor we never ate out or ate junk food because it is ridiculously expensive in comparison. We made our food from cheap ingredients. To save money.
Yes it takes more time and is far more work and is less convenient. US society has valued convenience over everything else for a few generations now. Cheaper it is not.
And it holds true today with my own grocery shopping. Cooking meals and being smart about grocery shopping is far cheaper per meal than buying premade junk. The few times I do have a cart full of products from the middle aisles I am astounded at how expensive it is.
... It can cut both ways, and depends a lot on the 'level' of poverty and specific circumstances, although the calculus has shifted over time.
If people are working crazy hours, sometimes it's a struggle to even get time to properly shop for groceries, let alone cook. There's varying degrees of that too;
i.e. I remember the 3-4$ frozen pizzas that could be used as a dinner and leftovers; And yes, at least back then, We could instead buy some chicken, rice, and a can or two of soup or stock to do something way healthier, at the same overall cost per meal...
But it would take an hour or so to properly prepare instead of just tossing that 3-4$ frozen pizza into the oven and letting it do it's thing.
Then throw into the mix where both partners due to work and/or school aren't even home till 8PM, and one of them has to wake up by 7AM to get to work the next morning [0]
I've lived that situation, although thankfully that wasn't every night and we could balance between the healthy self cooked option and the junkish-food-pizza.
But I've also lived the situation where both parties are working late, or the commute is so bad, you're glad you advanced enough you could afford the more expensive, but at least then managable 'taco bell' option.
But then there's the sort of 'generational passing on' where we now have multiple generations raised on carry out, fast food, or microwaved meals. Sometimes where they were never given the teaching or responsibility of cooking because (for reasons similar to above, including more affluent cases) the general concept of 'a home cooked meal' becomes the exception case rather than the norm [1]
[0] - You don't want to eat too late for other health reasons of course...
[1] - And yes, that group really does tend to be less healthy overall from my personal experiences, even if their dining tastes are 'expensive'.
You are describing time, not cost. I can assure you my family worked pretty demanding jobs with long hours. And spent hours preparing food on top of it.
The average American spends 4-5 hours a day on personal screen time, and this skews higher the poorer you get based on a few studies. I've found from talking with folks on the subject many of them are the ones glued to social media and/or the TV.
I agree it's much more convenient to toss a couple pizzas in the oven. I do not agree it's less expensive. I don't know where you're buying your rice or chicken, but even at $4/pizza I can't pencil that out. Chicken comes with free chicken stock if you're buying $5 rotisserie chickens (or whole chickens) and keeping the bones and vegetable ends/etc. around for stock making. This is the level of poor I was talking about. Even at $2.69/lb (the price I paid ~3 weeks ago) for chicken breast, it's going to be cheaper to feed two people than split a whole pizza. Rice is less than 30 cents a serving bought in bulk 50lb bags from a local ethnic store. $1 of rice and a $5 chicken is going to feed around 3-5 people, or give 1 person a lot of leftovers.
I agree one cannot live on just chicken and rice, but one cannot live on just the cheapest frozen pizzas either. I've kinda done both during my life. I lived probably a decade on junk food because I was either too busy or too lazy to do my own cooking like I did growing up. But this was after I started making IT money and could afford it.
> But then there's the sort of 'generational passing on' where we now have multiple generations raised on carry out, fast food, or microwaved meals. Sometimes where they were never given the teaching or responsibility of cooking because (for reasons similar to above, including more affluent cases) the general concept of 'a home cooked meal' becomes the exception case rather than the norm
I definitely agree with this one. Habits and skills are passed down generationally. Someone may not even know where to start looking at youtube for how-to videos to make their own chicken stock for close to free with a $5 crock-pot from the local thrift store these days. And that's probably intermediate level cooking skills, much less beginner level. My wife and I joke about our "depression era cooking" hobby.
I agree there are exceptions, nuance, etc. to this topic. But I get so tired of folks pretending eating home cooked meals is somehow more expensive than an equivalent quality prepared meal. Yes, you can spend as much as you want cooking at home. But the same is true eating out or buying pre-made stuff.
The time factor is certainly very true though. You get much better at it as you practice over the years, but it's always going to be easier and faster to just toss some chicken nuggets into the microwave and be done with it.
This is not moralizing or anything like that. I have lived well over half of my adult life eating junk, and only since getting married to a partner who loves cooking have I turned this back around to my childhood experiences. And we certainly do not optimize very hard for cost - just smart choices by buying stuff on sale, in-season, and in bulk when it makes sense to. I just really cannot square the claim to reality that it's cheaper to eat junk food than it is to eat moderately healthy at home. It's one of those Internet social media memes that just becomes truth by repeating it so much.
I don't buy that. You can buy a steak and a potato for two for less than a bag of Doritos. A banana costs far less than a candy bar. A bag of mixed nuts will provide many meals.
Price out a bag of rice, a bag of beans, etc.
> food companies' only interest is in maximizing profit
Pleasing your customers is how profit is maximized.
Besides, I bet if you were faced with two stores, one that charges $x for A, and another that charges $(x-1) for A, you'd patronize the latter store.
> Pleasing your customers is how profit is maximized.
If you ignore everything like, including but not limited to, market capture, addictive products, lock-in, information asymmetry, planned obsolescence, dark patterns, captive markets, artificial scarcity, seldom-lucrative-yet-important services and any externality, very true!
Where are you getting a steak and potato for 2 for less than a bag of Doritos? Is it a 50 lb bag of Doritos?
Maybe it's 4oz of very lean tough steak and a single small russet potato with no fat, and the two mentioned are five year olds.
I can buy the day old steaks for $5-6, and a potato is maybe 50 cents. Doritos are $6.49.
A Hershey's chocolate bar is $3.99-$4.99. A banana is maybe 50 cents.
....
At least 10 to 15-ish years ago, I would actually be closer to agreeing;
You could get Cube or Chuck steak for 3-5$ a pound and potatoes were cheap as hell too. Toss some diced onion in and You'll have a good dinner.
How do I know? Well I grew up in a family where for... reasons[0] we were not that well off for quite a while.
Cube Steak was one of the big things we did for a family meal that Dad cooked. (Chili was his other favorite to make, which was also cheap to do for how much food came out of it...)
However the current prices of beef, I feel like you'd need to have a long standing personal relationship with a local butcher or rancher to make this true.
[0] - My mother's over-propensity for being truly Christ-like in her charity to family and others, also sending myself and my three siblings to Catholic school to avoid the then-absolutely-failed Detroit Public school system were major factors.
I'm québécois, my grandma came from a big family (12 siblings IIRC). She used to cook with ground beef all the time cause that's what her mother cooked with too - it was THE cheap source of protein. Meat loaf, shepherds pie, meat pie, beef and cheese macaroni, the whole shebang. Nowadays, when I cook any of those meals, it's cause I feel like eating that specific thing, but it often turns out to be the most expensive meal of the week.
A quick search has Walmart selling a 14.5 oz bag of Doritos for $5 [0], which according to the back of the packet is 15 servings. Obviously that's comparable to a single piece of beef and a potato (/s)
While we're at it, on the $5 Hershey's bar - Walmart has a 7.56 oz one for $4.52 [1] which claims to be eight servings so again obviously just like a single banana.
[0] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Doritos-Nacho-Cheese-Tortilla-Sna...
[1] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Hershey-s-Special-Dark-Mildly-Swe...
This is not true. Legumes/dairy/spices/vegetables are cheaper than boxed foods.
Only question is do you want to spend 1 hour making it and cleaning up.
You are missing the protein.
Eggs and legumes and yogurt and milk and tofu have protein. And chicken isn’t that expensive.