More U.S. adults believe it is a good thing than a bad thing for adults to use weight-loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and other brands if they are struggling with obesity or have a health condition tied to weight, but they are not broadly supportive of teens who have obesity using the medications, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
When it comes to ages 12 to 18 who are dealing with obesity, Americans are divided: About one-third say the use of weight-loss drugs in this context is a “very” or “somewhat” good thing, a similar share say it's a bad thing and about 3 in 10 say it isn't good or bad.
For adults, about half think it’s a good thing, and about 2 in 10 think it’s a bad thing.
The popular weight-loss drugs known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, which were originally meant to treat diabetes, surged in popularity after the Food and Drug Administration approved them for weight loss in 2021. Now, they're all over the place — celebrities, TV advertisements, social media, news media, your neighbor.
Doctors and researchers say the injectable drugs are a effective tools when it comes to treating obesity. The American Medical Association has urged health insurance companies to cover the drugs, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has said that doctors should consider giving the medications to kids 12 and older who are struggling with obesity.
The AP-NORC poll results indicate that even as doctors urge the drugs' use, some Americans continue to have concerns about weight-loss drugs, particularly for teens and people who aren’t struggling with obesity.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 100 million adults in the U.S. are obese — defined as having a body mass index of 30 or higher — and more than 22 million adults are severely obese, with a BMI of 40 or higher.
Obesity is classified as a chronic disease that needs medical attention, because it can result from genetics, environmental factors and socioeconomic factors. Patients who use the drugs as an extra boost to lose weight can face criticism that they’re somehow “cheating,” said Dr. Cate Varney, who treats patients with obesity at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“It’s like telling somebody to nail a nail into a board and then giving one person a hammer and another person, you know, like a chopstick,” Varney said, adding, "we’re leveling the playing field with these medications.”
Anjanette Ewen lost 67 pounds on Mounjaro, and credits that weight loss as the reason she found a cancerous lump on her breast. The 50-year-old from Fort Walton Beach, Florida, who responded to the AP-NORC poll, said she had struggled to lose weight for years because of complications with polycystic ovarian syndrome.
Because of PCOS, which has a common symptom of sudden weight fluctuations, Ewen went from 150 pounds to 220 pounds in eight months.
“I’ve been on a weight loss journey for forever, it seems like, and nothing was working," she said.
About 20% of children in the U.S. have obesity, according to CDC data. Dr. Gitanjali Srivastava, the medical director of obesity medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said obesity is easier to treat in children than in adults.
“The youth actually respond beautifully to these medications,” she said, adding that obesity at a young age increases the chance "of having even severe and more profound obesity as an adult ... to the point that you will actually have to have medications and or bariatric surgery as an adult.”
Without insurance, out-of-pocket costs for the drugs can run hundreds of dollars each time you fill a prescription.
The AP-NORC poll shows about half of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” favor having the federal programs Medicare and Medicaid cover weight-loss drugs for people who have obesity, while about 2 in 10 are opposed the idea and about one-quarter have a neutral view.
So far, Medicare, the health insurance program for 66 million Americans 65 and older, doesn’t cover the drugs for obesity. Coverage varies under Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income Americans.
Some large companies with 500 employees or more and some Medicaid programs are adding coverage. But many other employers and health insurers are scaling back, with some citing treatment costs.
You can’t get weight-loss drugs without a prescription, though there are off-market compounds that people can purchase.
The AP-NORC poll showed that about 6 in 10 Americans believe it is a “very" or “somewhat” bad thing for adults to take GLP-1s for weight loss if they're not obese, and that increases to about 7 in 10 for teens in the same situation.
Younger adults, though, are a little more open to the use of GLP-1s for teens who aren't dealing with obesity. About 8 in 10 Americans above the age of 45 believe it's a “bad idea” for teenagers who want to lose weight by using the drugs but aren't obese, but about two-thirds of American adults under the age of 45 hold the same opinion.
AP Health Writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report. Hunter reported from Atlanta. Sanders reported from Washington.
The AP-NORC poll of 1,147 adults was conducted Jan. 9-13, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
41 Comments
Login to comment
Wick's pencil
I guess they haven't heard of the very serious dangers of these drugs.
toolonggone
Or, perhaps they have and have decided that the dangers and difficulties of being obese outweigh them.
iknowall
They're looking for a quick fix without caring about the inherent severe dangers.
nickybutt
Eat less, exercise more. No drugs needed.
virusrex
Patients do since the drugs can only be used unders medical supervision, the doctors and patients of course justifiably consider this a much lesser risk than the problems derived from obesity when all other forms of weight loss measures fail. That is the whole justification of the approval of these drugs.
There is nothing "quick" about these weight loss drugs, the patients still have to do diet and excercise, they simply don't fail at these lifestyle changes even if they need the same effort.
BB
Drugs carry risks. If you're desperate I guess it seems to be worth it, but would be so much better to attempt a natural approach that avoids potential side effects.
OssanAmerica
What value is there to what about half of Americans think? They voted a convicted felon and sex abuser into the White House.
Mr Kipling
It is a pity that will power cannot be bottled and sold so the obese can stop force feeding themselves and get off the sofa.
virusrex
When it comes with a much more important risk of failing? no, not really. The drugs are not meant to be used by those that already can change their lifestyles and keep at it without problems, but for those that fail to persevere for a variety of reasons that include genetics, culture, socioeconomic status, etc. For those patients not controlling their weight is a much more important risk for their health.
Do you even know how the drugs work? because even if reductionist this is exactly the result, patients no longer have the multiple problems that come with a more active lifestyle and healthier diet.
Raw Beer
Yes, and they haven't heard of the natural and very effective ways of accomplishing great results. The advice that most people hear is all wrong; in many cases the opposite of what you should do.
These very expensive drugs come with great risks. And even when they work as intended, they generally result in weaker muscles and bones.
virusrex
Both things are completely wrong, the first because they are under medical care in order to use the drugs, which means they are being made aware of the risks, and the second because the "very effective ways" are the ones that have demonstrated to fail these patients and caused the obesity epidemic in countries like the US. As usual, when someone says there is an easy and simple solution for a problem that is actually terribly common that means the solution is worthless, else the problem would not be common at all.
Much less risks than the alternative, which is to fail to lose weight and be victim of the risk of obesity.
No, they don't, "weaker muscles and bones" is a well known problem of every weight loss intervention (with or without drugs) and easily solved with excercise, if anything the drugs come with less risk of this problem precisely because they make easier to continue doing the excercise that prevents any loss of muscle or bone density.
The weight loss drugs help to make this much easier, not just theoretically possible but practically so.
Increased appetite, cravings, anxiety, fatigue, mood disturbances, etc. etc.
People don't just get bored of eating healthier and be more active, there are many problems that make it extremely difficult to stick with the lifestyle changes that make people end up failing and going back to their old habits.
Raw Beer
The problem is with what most people call a "healthy diet".
The diets I recommend do not result in "increased appetite, cravings, anxiety, fatigue, mood disturbances, etc. etc." In fact they often eliminate those things.
No, that is false. Carnivore and keto do not do that. Carnivore does the exact opposite.
virusrex
The problem would be to listen to podcasts and grifters trying to profit from people instead of the experts, there is no problem with what people that use scientific evidence call a healthy diet.
Not only they are unhealthy (as the institutions of medical science say), they also results in the same problems as diets that are actually recommended by experts, which explain why almost everybody also abandon them eventually and rebound to their previous weight if not more.
Without excercise yes they do, and with excercise diets supported by the drugs mentioned in the article do not cause loss of muscle or bone either.
With the added disadvantage that carnivore or keto diets also increase several other kinds of risk for the health, so the scientific consensus is that they are not considered healthy and much more balanced diets are recommended.
Pukey2
Try eating healthier foods, less food and try walking.
ian
Successful market study big market
ian
Will the insurance companies budge?
ian
Sell them junk food then sell them drugs so they can shovel in more junk food
virusrex
Advice as useful as saying to an alcoholic to just try stop drinking
The whole point of the drugs is that patients can stop unhealthy foods much easier, people under treatment still have to do diet and excercise, just not fail that much at it.
iknowall
How true.
No reason to further endanger one's health with these pharma-promoted drugs.
virusrex
The problem is listening to "most people" when the actual experts are available to clearly provide good examples of actually healthy diets.
Yet you can't find any reference to support this personal belief, so you have to repeat it. Doctors know much more than random internet people about what is better for the patients, and they are the ones recommending the drugs to lower the risk for them. Just pretending to know more than them is not an argument, is at much a bad excuse for not having any argument.
Zaphod
And I hope RFK stops that from happening. Using pharma chemicals to "treat" a lifestyle symptom is indefensible.
Zaphod
virusrex
You do realize that there are doctors on the internet too, with various opinions, and that all of your selected "experts" are also on it? And yourself too? The irony of complaining about the internet on the internet seems to escape you.
virusrex
Because you think stopping helpful medical interventions is better than letting people adquire multiple chronic diseases that are much more profitable? that makes no sense. And as seen RFKjr is only going to do what benefit the most the biggest pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
The same could be said about diabetes or hypertension, yet apparently you have no problem about treating those "symptoms". Which evidence the only problem is what triggers your personal prejudices. If you have doctors and scientists on one side and politicians in the other it makes absolutely no sense to side with the politicians.
And those with actual names and credentials agree with the medical consensus, except of course for those that instead choose personal profit and try to mislead people into making bad decisions about their health without offering any evidence. But every profession has its own examples of unprofessional, unethical, unprepared people taking advantage of the public.
Every single institution of medical science in the whole world, in every country of the planet? that is an impossible conspiracy. As an argument it holds no value, it is just the same old excuse of antiscientific people trying to "explain" why everybody says they are wrong and there is no evidence to prove their claims, creationists, flat earthers, miasma believers, they always use the excuse "everybody is on it, that is why I have no evidence of what I am saying, bro just trust me"
iknowall
A reference that shows the risks associated with these medications?
It's printed right on the shots!
You don't know that???
virusrex
No, a reference that shows the risks associated with these medications outweigh the risks from failure to change the lifestyles for the patients for whom they are indicated.
Your claim was that there was no reason to use these drugs, that is not printed anywhere and the doctors clearly contradict you, medical professionals know much more than you about it.
Zaphod
virusrex
Non sequitur. Pharma profits either way in that case. While there is no profit when people avoid lifestyle diseases. MAHA!
I absolutely do. Treating diabetes w/o lifestyle changes is indefensible, and hypertension is a symptom, not a disease. You might want to read Dr. Robert Lustig on the issue. (And yes, he is on the dreaded internet, besides teaching at the UOC).
Plenty of experts with actual names and credentials disagree with the so-called "consensus" promoted by big pharma.
virusrex
Not a non-sequitur, the argument is that RFKjr will not do anything that hurts big companies so it is not rational to think he will stop anything from happening as you wished. If companies will profit importantly from any drug then RFKjr will be behind them, and opposed to any measure that would be in the way. Like caps on the price of drugs.
The problem is that lots of people can't simply avoid unhealthy lifestyles, which is why just saying they should do it is useless and precisely what made countries like the US end up in a terrible situation. Once again, this is like saying to alcoholics they should just stop drinking and to poor people just to get more money. There is no profit in letting many patients fail, but there is no benefit either.
So you say people should not be treated for any disease related to a lifestyle? at least you recognize this terribly bad position and also makes it extremely good that you are not in charge of any public health system.
One, treating diabetes without changes in lifestyle still means patients get a very important reduction on complications and risks so it is not indefensible at all,
Two, the drugs mentioned in the article only facilitate the lifestyle changes, so you contradict yourself and now recognize they do have value and should be used since they facilitate what you think should be done.
Hypertension is a pathological condition and itself causes many health problems. It is also not a symptom in the sense that (opposed to signs) patients can have it without ever noticing it.
Pain-symptom, hypoglycemia-sign.
Why? does he say interventions that facilitate lifestyle changes are worthless as you claim?
Yet you can never present even one institution of medical health, out of thousands and thousands in any country around the world. Just people that either you misrepresent (and they say something very different from your claims) or present zero evidence.
Again, all institutions on the planet are on a conspiracy? impossible to believe, for creationists, flat earthers or any other antiscientific position.
Raw Beer
Indeed, such as Drs.: Robert Lustig, Stephen Phinney, Tim Noakes, Bart Kay, Shawn Baker, Robert Cywes, Jason Fung, Anthony Chaffee, Jeffrey Volek, Paul Mason and many others...
virusrex
Robert Lusting is not saying that the drugs are worse than failing lifestyle changes, Phinney systematically avoids addressing all evidence that refutes his points (and personally profits from his antiscientific recommendations), Noakes loves to pretend GLP-1 drugs make excercise impossible so muscle loss is inevitable when the opposite is true, Kay routinely dismiss the evidence of the dangers and risks from ketogenic diets without ever refuting the evidence that proves those risks...
I mean, they are exactly the examples of the unethical or unprepared professionals that like to pretend they can refute a global consensus without actually providing the evidence first. By all means the opposite of what a responsible professional in medical science would do.
And again, not a single institute of medical science refuting the current consensus on GLP-1 agonists and what constitutes a healthy diet, still impossible to believe every single one is on the conspiracy, as believable as when flat-earthers and creationists use the same excuse.
Zaphod
virusrex
What is that even supposed to mean? Chemical drugs are not an equally valid alternative to lifestyle changes, no matter how often you repeat the mantra that they are.
virusrex
That the reference you gave is not supporting the claim you made, you misrepresented the source. The actual options for the patients for whom the drugs are indicated are
A) take the drugs and successfully change their lifestyle to include more excercise and a healthier diet.
B) don't take the drugs and fail trying to change their lifestyle again.
For people that easily can have a healthier lifestyle the drugs are not indicated in the first place, they are unnecessary.
They are not an alternative, they are tools that allow for lifestyle changes to be successfully adopted. You keep getting confused about the mechanisms of action of the drugs even after it was repeatedly explained to you, GLP-1 analogs are not an alternative, they are used to facilitate the changes.
I can keep repeating this explanation every time you make the misrepresentation of what the drugs are, the simple fact you are unable to refute it means you are also accepting you are mistaken in your understanding and unable to defend it, so you just repeat it.
Raw Beer
Again you're ignoring the 3rd option:
C) succeed with lifestyle changes by following the right advice; thus not only losing weight but also improving your overall health and not risking serious adverse effects and death.
virusrex
That is not an option by definition, once again, for those for which simply giving advice was enough to change their lifestyle the drugs are not indicated in the first place.
This denial of reality, pretending that people could simply fight the many different factors that make it realistically impossible to persevere, is what made the US and other countries end up with the obesity crisis. Once again, this is as useful and valid as saying that alcoholism could be eradicated if alcoholics just stopped drinking. Worthless as a solution.
Raw Beer
No, what is denial of reality is claiming that because some people failed when following bad advice, they will always fail.
The same bad advice that has resulted in explosive obesity rates...
virusrex
You keep claiming the current consensus is bad advice, but you can never prove that with evidence, there is no point in pretending the whole medical community of the world is wrong just because you like better what other people (without evidence either) say. Specially when those people that can follow the advice (and don't need drugs) have a very healthy lifestyle. That alone demonstrate the problem is not the advice.
The consensus of science also applies in countries like Japan, there is no difference in the basic recommendations (low salts, control carbohydrates to healthy levels, include lots of vegetables, etc. etc.)
If your claim was true then Japan would also have explosive obesity rates, which obviously is not the case. This also demonstrate the claim is false.
Wick's pencil
All they have to do is live as they did 70 years ago or so, before the food pyramid brainwashing, seed oils, meat phobia, cholesterol phobia...
What's preventing them to do so? Must be the "consensus of science".
Wick's pencil
You're assuming everything else is the same. But there are differences, such as cultural differences.
And still, their diabetes rates are also increasing, must be that great advice based on the "consensus of science".
virusrex
Life expectancy 70 years ago is still lower than now, your suggestion would make people live less and with more disease.
The same consensus that drives higher life expectancy around the world and with more healthy years. Again, this is the same consensus that supports the recommendations in Japan.
No, there is no such assumption, as long as the recommendations are the same it should be expected a similar result, but that is not the case. The "cultural differences" do not modify the recommendations themselves, they modify how closely the people follow them, so it still proves your claim that the recommendations are wrong is simply false.
In the same rate as the diet and lifestyle changes FROM what is recommended towards what is not, this argument again support the fact that the consensus of science is correct and people do better when following it.
Raw Beer
Many factors contribute to life expectancy, including sanitation, surgery, infant mortality... Nobody is suggesting that we should reject all changes from the past 70 years.
But in terms of metabolic disease, things are much worse now than they were 70 years ago; not even close.
virusrex
And for all these factors the common thing is the recommendations and actions from medical science, recognizing it has been improved is a very powerful argument to say the recommendations and interventions are not wrong.
But when you claim any change is is wrong without any evidence your argument is reduced to "science must be wrong" which of course makes absolutely no sense since it has produced huge benefits.
For populations that follow the medical recommendations this is completely false, therefore the recommendations are not the problem but people that don't follow them for a variety of reasons. That is where your argument against the medical consensus loses all its value, since it would require absolutely that those that follow the consensus have worse health outcomes, the opposite is true.