Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
A pharmacist displays boxes of Ozempic in Provo, Utah. Image: REUTERS file
health

Drugs like Ozempic won’t ‘cure’ obesity but they might make us more fat-phobic

44 Comments
By Emma Beckett

Many have declared drugs like Ozempic could “end obesity” by reducing the appetite and waistlines of millions of people around the world.

Screenshot-2024-04-22-at-8.06.54.png

When we look past the hype, this isn’t just untrue – it can also be harmful. The focus on weight, as opposed to health, is a feature of diet culture. This frames the pursuit of thinness as more important than other aspects of physical and cultural wellbeing.

The Ozempic buzz isn’t just rooted in health and medicine but plays into ideas of fat stigma and fat phobia. This can perpetuate fears of fatness and fat people, and the behaviors that harm people who live in larger bodies.

Not the first ‘miracle’ weight-loss drug

This isn’t the first time we have heard that weight-loss drugs will change the world. Ozempic and its family of GLP-1-mimicking drugs are the latest in a long line of weight loss drugs. Each looked promising at the time. But none have lived up to the hype in the long term. Some have even been withdrawn from sale due to severe side effects.

Science does improve incrementally, but diet culture also keeps us on a cycle of hope for the next miracle cure. So drugs like Ozempic might not deliver the results individuals expect, continuing the cycle of hope and shame.

Ozempic doesn’t work the same for everyone

When we talk about the results of studies using Ozempic, we often focus on the average (also known as the mean) results or the maximum (or peak) results. So, studies might show those using the drug lost an average of 10.9% of their body weight, but some lost more than 20% and others less than 5%

What we don’t talk about as much is that responses are variable. Some people are “non-responders”. This means not everyone loses as much weight as the average, and some don’t lose weight at all. For some people, the side-effects will outweigh the benefits.

When people are on drugs like Ozempic, their blood sugar is better controlled by enhancing the release of insulin and reducing the levels of another hormone called glucagon.

But there is greater variability in the amount of weight lost than the variability in blood sugar control. It isn’t clear why, but is likely due to differences in genetics and lifestyles, and weight being more complex to regulate.

Treatment needs to be ongoing. What will this mean?

When weight-loss drugs do work, they are only effective while they’re being taken. This means that to keep the weight off people need to keep taking them long term. One study found an average weight loss of more than 17% after a year on Ozempic became an average net weight loss of 5.6% more than two years after stopping treatment.

Short-term side effects of drugs like Ozempic include dizziness, nausea, vomiting and other gastrointestinal upsets. But because these are new drugs, we simply don’t have data to tell us if side effects will increase as people take them for longer periods.

Nor do we know if effectiveness will be reduced in the long term. This is called drug tolerance and is documented for other long-term treatments such as antidepressants and chemotherapies.

Biology is only part of the story

For some people, using GLP-1-mimicking drugs like Ozempic will be validating and empowering. They will feel like their biology has been “normalised” in the same way that blood pressure or cholesterol medication can return people to the “normal” range of measures.

But biologically, obesity isn’t solely about GLP-1 activity with many other hormones, physical activity, and even our gut microbes involved.

Overall, obesity is complex and multifaceted. Obesity isn’t just driven by personal biology and choice; it has social, cultural, political, environmental and economic determinants.

A weight-centered approach misses the rest of the story

The weight-centered approach suggests that leading with thinness means health will follow. But changing appetite is only part of the story when it comes to health.

Obesity often co-exists with malnutrition. We try to separate the effects in research using statistics, but focusing on the benefits of weight-loss drugs without addressing the underlying malnutrition means we aren’t likely to see the improved health outcomes in everyone who loses weight.

Obesity isn’t an issue detached from people

Even when it is well-intentioned, the rhetoric around the joy of “ending the obesity epidemic” can harm people. Obesity doesn’t occur in isolation. It is people who are obese. And the celebration and hype of these weight-loss drugs can reinforce harmful fat stigma.

The framing of these drugs as a “cure” exacerbates the binary view of thin versus fat, and healthy versus unhealthy. These are not binary outcomes that are good or bad. Weight and health exist on a spectrum.

Ironically, while fat people are told they need to lose weight for their health, they are also shamed for “cheating” or taking shortcuts by using medication.

Drugs are tools, not silver bullets

The creation of these drugs is a start, but they remain expensive, and the hype has been followed by shortages. Ultimately, complex challenges aren’t addressed with simple solutions. This is particularly true when people are involved, and even more so when there isn’t even an agreement on what the challenge is.

Many organizations and individuals see obesity is a disease and believe this framing helps people to seek treatment.

Others think it’s unnecessary to attach medical labels to body types and argue it confuses risk factors (things that are linked to increased risk of illness) with illness itself.

Regardless, two things will always remain true. Drugs can only ever be tools, and those tools need to be applied in a context. To use these tools ethically, we need to remain mindful of who this application harms along the way.

Emma Beckett is Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Dietetics & Food Innovation, School of Health Sciences, at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Every new tool that ends up useful means new benefits, but at the same time risks that need to be identified and corrected as much as possible, preferentially before the risks become a serious problem. In this way the article makes a valid warning about a possible negative outcome from a more widespread use of GLP-1 agonists, from stigma to exaggerated expectations and later disappointments.

Fortunately this is not the first time this kind of situation is present and professionals have at least some idea of what kind of problems may happen in the future and how they can be dealt with, the important part is that to prevent those problems society in general requires having at least a minimum of scientific literacy, so they can identify invalid propaganda from people trying to make a quick buck, mostly by exaggerating either the benefits or the risks of the drugs.

Usually this is quite easy, one side will say that the drugs are miraculous without any risks, and the other that the drugs only represent risks without any benefits. The actual experts on the other side will align with the scientific consensus that shows the drugs have strong benefits when used responsibly but also risks that require vigilance from a professional.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Many side effects.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

This is a pretty sensible article, quite a departure from the tripe that usually pops up on JT these days.

The only real solution to the obesity epidemic is for people to take responsibility for what they eat, and stop shovelling high-carb processed garbage laden with inflammatory seed oils into their bodies.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The only real solution to the obesity epidemic is for people to take responsibility for what they eat,

A "real" solution that solves nothing is not a solution, is mostly just wishful thinking, There is no mystery about what is necessary to have a healthy lifestyle, the problem is how to implement changes in a sustainable and realistic way, else the problem (and things like alcoholism or other addictions) would never become a serious public health problem.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Drugs like Ozempic won’t ‘cure’ obesity but they might make us more fat-phobic

Absolutely. And the risks associated with taking such drugs are high.

Better to keep to moderate diet and maintain weight by exercising properly in combination, as advised by the medical consensus.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

A "real" solution that solves nothing is not a solution, is mostly just wishful thinking, There is no mystery about what is necessary to have a healthy lifestyle, the problem is how to implement changes in a sustainable and realistic way, else the problem (and things like alcoholism or other addictions) would never become a serious public health problem.

I don't disagree in principle with what you're saying here, but if people don't take responsibility for what they eat and continue to consume low-quality food that causes a range of health problems - including obesity, they're not going to improve sustainably. This is what the article is saying. I'm not discounting psychological factors that prompt people to overeat, but ultimately people are responsible for what they put into their and their children's bodies, so my point still stands. Pharmaceuticals can be useful, but they're not a long-term solution and the adverse effects have to be considered as well.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I don't disagree in principle with what you're saying here, but if people don't take responsibility for what they eat and continue to consume low-quality food that causes a range of health problems - including obesity, they're not going to improve sustainably. 

Absolutely.

Blindly following what is said or sung on a pharmaceutical commercial is a major misinformed decision.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Taking any type of drug should be a last ditch solution but like most advances there is always the risk of abuse.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Absolutely. And the risks associated with taking such drugs are high.

Not even remotely as high and frequent as the risk that come from a failure to mantain lifestyle changes, which is why the FDA approved them to be used for the purpose of weight loss.

Or do you have any evidence that this approval is a failure on the part of the FDA? if this argument holds no weight.

Better to keep to moderate diet and maintain weight by exercising properly in combination, as advised by the medical consensus.

Which for some people includes pharmacological intervention, there is no medical consensus that says it is better to risk a likely failure instead, that claim is only yours.

 but if people don't take responsibility for what they eat and continue to consume low-quality food that causes a range of health problems 

Which again is like saying that if people don't abandon their addictions then they will have health problems, the issue is not understanding this necessity, the issue is that saying this is very easy, doing it is not.

I'm not discounting psychological factors that prompt people to overeat, but ultimately people are responsible for what they put into their and their children's bodies

Physcological factors are not the only ones, there are also socioeconomically or genetically important factors for example. Saying that people are responsible for their health does nothing to improve the public health problems, for that it is necessary much more than a moral judgment, practical, effective solutions are what is necessary, for some patients drugs can be part of that solution, part of being responsible for their own health.

Blindly following what is said or sung on a pharmaceutical commercial is a major misinformed decision.

Fortunately that is not what the scientific consensus says should be done, pretending this to be the case is just misleading people, the FDA is obviously not a pharmaceutical company, so why pretend it is when it approved the drugs?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Blindly following what is said or sung on a pharmaceutical commercial is a major misinformed decision.

Do you think blind disbelief is a logical course of action?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Which again is like saying that if people don't abandon their addictions then they will have health problems, the issue is not understanding this necessity, the issue is that saying this is very easy, doing it is not.

Sure it's not easy, but as I said before, pharmaceutical intervention can be helpful but it's not sustainable. Generally speaking, neither are the vast majority of the diet methods and supplements marketed to people concerned about their weight. Loads of rebound there. I know, I've tried a few myself, and the only method that's consistently worked to not only shed the relatively small number of kilos I need to lose but more importantly tame the chronic inflammation is very low carb (in the form of non-starchy vegetables) and elimination of seed oils as far as possible within my control.

Look, high-carb, seed oil-based foods are relatively cheap and often pretty tasty and I understand their appeal. But they're really bad for us and often highly addictive, and the obesity epidemic is just one effect of this. There are loads of other inflammatory conditions and hormonal disruptions stemming from them as well, especially type 2 diabetes. But outside of the genetic problems some people have that result in obesity, most people could manage their weight and health at a healthy level if they took responsibility for their health instead of ignoring it or outsourcing it. That includes people at the lower socioeconomic end of the scale.

This is quite a complex problem with lots of aspects to cover. Granted, not everyone can be "saved." People have to want to change, and as you said, change is hard. Alcoholics and drug abusers fall into this category too. They have to hit the bottom before they can recover. Throwing money at the problem hasn't really helped, and the food pyramid promoted over the past few decades has been a disaster for the most part. Taxing junk food hurts the people it's supposed to help most - the poorest - because they just end up paying more for the food they keep consuming. Banning certain ingredients like trans fats can work, but good luck trying to ban seed oils and sugar considering how economically entrenched they are. Perhaps cutting sales taxes on healthy food like raw meat and fish and vegetables and so on will help to make them more affordable and attractive to people who've avoided them due to cost. Education too, starting with turning the food pyramid upside down.

But in any case, the problem is going to take a long time to significantly mitigate if it can be really mediated at all. Every time I go home to Australia I see more and more overweight people as a proportion of the population. Very saddening but mostly preventable.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Sure it's not easy, but as I said before, pharmaceutical intervention can be helpful but it's not sustainable.

Based on exactly what? what projections say so and what data is being used for that? Specially important is what alternative measures can be used instead that have the same efficacy? If there is no alternative to something effective the obvious solution is to increase the efficacy (so the intervention is more cost effective), not just pretend that not using anything would be as beneficial. Specially important is that the drugs do not just help losing weight and several other health benefits have been found that can tilt the balance towards being cost effective.

Generally speaking, neither are the vast majority of the diet methods and supplements marketed to people concerned about their weight. 

If a drug makes much more likely to keep diet and excercise for the patients that means the life style changes become sustainable, specially important is when studies have demonstrated the weight can be maintained lower ever after months of not using drugs to support those changes. No need to get anything "marketed" patients will simply be much more successful following the instructions from their dietician, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc.

most people could manage their weight and health at a healthy level if they took responsibility for their health instead of ignoring it or outsourcing it

Big news, this is still magical thinking, if it was so easy no country would have obesity as a public health problem, pretending the multiple factors that make this "solution" not a realistic possibility can just be ignored is what makes your criticism useless, once again saying "addicts should just abandon their addictions" is as useful (not at all).

When you list the many problems other approaches have to deal with obesity your are disproving your own point, the drugs are not perfect, but at least they are effective, so compared with things that are at the same time ineffective and have their own disadvantages you are arguing why the drugs should be used.

But in any case, the problem is going to take a long time to significantly mitigate if it can be really mediated at all. 

And during that time millions and millions will die premature deaths because they fail in their lifestyle changes, many of those deaths can be prevented by including pharmacological help, so there is no reason in saying it should not be used as the experts recommend. That would be like denying a patient a blood transfusion to keep him alive until he can get a more permanent solution for a bleeding.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Since last year I have lost 15 kg without using any drugs. Another 5 kg to go.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Virusrex, I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or have questionable comprehension skills. In any case, judging by the semi-comprehensible word salad in the above post, you were more interested in posting a rebuttal than actually understanding the content. In some ways I was agreeing with your general thrust, but you incorrectly interpreted it as an anti-pharmaceutical rant.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Drugs/medicine are essential to quality of life. But they are better used to balance out a healthy lifestyle, than to repair the damage from an unhealthy one. There's a healthy balance; when that balance gets out of whack to one extreme or the other (fixing an unhealthy lifestyle with meds, or ignoring meds altogether), things fall apart.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Since last year I have lost 15 kg without using any drugs. Another 5 kg to go.

Something worth praise, drugs (and any other help) is something that can be useful for some people, not something that should be imposed on everyone, that is a completely different thing.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote,

It is quoted and the arguments that follow have no logical problem, saying that a result should be achieved without explaining how to reach that point is not useful, specially for a problem that has not been able to be solved with huge efforts. There is no misrepresentation, you offer no alternative and just say one solution (limited as it is) should be not tried because it is not perfect.

If you are unable to refute logically any of the arguments used to disqualify your point that is also not the same as things being incomprehensible, at much it is an excuse to avoid addressing those arguments when they disprove yours.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

These drugs have way too many severe side effects. Might as well ingest norovirus. Hmmm, maybe someone should market such a product and call in Norovir...

One of the main problems with treating obesity is that the training that doctors get is too much affected by Big Pharma and Big Food. Yeah, companies like Coca Cola invest lots of money on nutrition "science" and promotions.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

virusrex

Since last year I have lost 15 kg without using any drugs. Another 5 kg to go.

> Something worth praise, drugs (and any other help) is something that can be useful for some people, not something that should be imposed on everyone, that is a completely different thing.

I would never take drugs for weight loss. I have read many bad stories about Ozempic when people stopped taking it. Many seem to have regrets.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It is quoted and the arguments that follow have no logical problem, saying that a result should be achieved without explaining how to reach that point is not useful, specially for a problem that has not been able to be solved with huge efforts. There is no misrepresentation, you offer no alternative and just say one solution (limited as it is) should be not tried because it is not perfect.

If you are unable to refute logically any of the arguments used to disqualify your point that is also not the same as things being incomprehensible, at much it is an excuse to avoid addressing those arguments when they disprove yours.

You clearly aren't capable of or interested in responding directly to points that you perceive as contra to your own biases.

My point, and that of the author of this article, is that ultimately it's the person's own responsibility to maintain a healthy weight through eating the right foods sustainably. I've said this in my other posts: Prescription pharmaceuticals can help on that path but they can't be taken indefinitely without side effects, some of which may be serious over the long term. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried, just tried with caution and not relied upon permanently. Got it? Many of the dietary methods and supplements are either junk that don't work or are unsustainable because they're just too hard to stick to for the long term. But anything worth doing takes effort.

What's more, over the years we've had governments - advised by prominent doctors, nutritionists, and medical institutions - promote polyunsaturated seed oils as heart-healthy and saturated fats as bad, which has led to them being in just about every form of processed food you can imagine, heavily processed and in quantities that are toxic to the body. Not to mention all the sugar that's added to food advertised as low- and non-fat, which deceives people into buying something they mistakenly believe is good for them.

That's not to say, of course, that many dieticians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists do give good advice to their patients, but it's still up to the patients to follow that advice. You can't force them. It's their own responsibility.

Big news, this is still magical thinking, if it was so easy no country would have obesity as a public health problem, pretending the multiple factors that make this "solution" not a realistic possibility can just be ignored is what makes your criticism useless, once again saying "addicts should just abandon their addictions" is as useful (not at all).

This is not what I said at all, but addicts (food addiction is one addiction) can only clean up for good if they take responsibility for their lives. Not easy and not possible for all of them, and sure, doing so can involve carefully guided pharmaceutical and/or psychological assistance, but it still involves the recovering addict to take ultimate responsibility for healing. Do you really have a problem with that concept?

And I looked at some macro-level solutions, with none of them being easy and some being impractical.

And during that time millions and millions will die premature deaths because they fail in their lifestyle changes, many of those deaths can be prevented by including pharmacological help, so there is no reason in saying it should not be used as the experts recommend. That would be like denying a patient a blood transfusion to keep him alive until he can get a more permanent solution for a bleeding.

And for the punchline....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

wallaceToday  11:51 am JST

Since last year I have lost 15 kg without using any drugs. Another 5 kg to go.

Nice work! How have you done it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Bad Haircut

wallace

Since last year I have lost 15 kg without using any drugs. Another 5 kg to go.

> Nice work! How have you done it?

Diet. Local gym twice a week. Determination. When you are old the weight increase is easy and the loss difficult.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

These drugs have way too many severe side effects. 

Compared with their benefits no they don't, they have been approved for their use on weight loss precisely because this has been proved scientifically, the extra benefits that they have for other health risks only make them even better compared with not using them.

Might as well ingest norovirus

That irresponsible suggestion has no comparison, pretending approved and proved medical interventions are the same as risky infections only makes it obvious the intention to mislead people into rejecting things that may increase their wellbeing when used under medical supervision as intended.

One of the main problems with treating obesity is that the training that doctors get is too much affected by Big Pharma and Big Food.

The current recommendations are based on clear evidence of benefits and risks, you on the other hand have repeatedly recommended things that increase importantly the risk of cardiac problems and do not conform with the medical consensus. That is much worse than the accepted best possible treatment against obesity.

I would never take drugs for weight loss. I have read many bad stories about Ozempic when people stopped taking it. Many seem to have regrets.

Even if your personal situation would indicate a much early death if you don't use them? of course that is your decision to make but for many people that is the choice and it is very clear the benefits they obtain.

Anecdotes are the lowest form of of evidence available and because of that they can't contradict what is found from studies in hundreds or thousands of people proving something different. If someone for example says they knew of 3 cases of prostatic cancer that were treated with surgery but died soon afterwards suffering from multiple complications that made them regret their treatment and the person says they would never undergo that surgery that would also be his choice, but it would not disprove that for most patient surgical treatment is a very important part that helps them recover their health.

You clearly aren't capable of or interested in responding directly to points that you perceive as contra to your own biases.

I did so successfully, the one that refused to do that were you excusing yourself from discussing the arguments.

My point, and that of the author of this article, is that ultimately it's the person's own responsibility to maintain a healthy weight through eating the right foods sustainably. 

Which does nothing to negate the fact that drugs can be part of that responsibility and can be indicated as one way to maintain their health, which is contrary of what you wrote before.

*Prescription pharmaceuticals can help on that path** but they can't be taken indefinitely without side effects*

When those side effects are less important than the benefits obtained then there is no problem, that applies to every medical intervention, all have negative aspects but they can still be used (even indefinetely) as long as the benefits are more important.

That's not to say, of course, that many dieticians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists do give good advice to their patients, but it's still up to the patients to follow that advice. 

The point is that that advice can include using drugs to significantly increase the efficacy of the rest of the recommendations, when that applies for a patient there is no merit in saying the drugs have negative side effects, everything else the doctors recommend is the same.

This is not what I said at all, but addicts (food addiction is one addiction) can only clean up for good if they take responsibility for their lives.

Which is still very easy to say, very difficult to actually do, so if something makes it much easier then there is no point in just rejecting that because it is not perfect. There is no value, no point in saying people should do something without offering a way to actually do it.

Which comment do you think is more useful

"You just have to stop your addiction"

"This therapy followed in this way makes it 50% more likely you can stop your addiction"

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

i guess the fat people epidemic has been caused by many things over the decades, and the research shows that over the decades. Socially And economically. So socially we have encouraged women to break the chains of the kitchen and get a career, so there is less time to think about food, quality and quantity and the heavy industries men traditionally did have been replaced or reduced. Retail psychology is another part, deals, two pizzas for the price of one or buy two get one free. Psychologically this appears cheaper but we know that the person will eat more calories than they ever intended at each sitting. So in reality the person/shopper has bought more food than they really intended. Eg I’ll have one today and one tomorrow but they’ll actually eat both today, buying another tomorrow. Advertising also pushes parents to buy poor food for their kids. If it’s made in a factory then it filled with sugars fats, emulsifiers etc. cause quantity over quality is more important. As both parents work, with less time and money it’s easier just to throw something in the microwave.The idea of having school lunch rules seems to have been lost. So I will give Japanese schools some praise here. No juices, no potato chips, chocolate or cookies. PE is still seen as important whereas in some western “fatty people” countries it’s been sliding down the value chain. Finally the health service is supposed to fix it all at the cost of the tax payer, while the fast food companies bring in the profits and pay tax to the government. I guess that old adage is true “there really is no free meal”.On top of that people aren’t the only ones to blame, It’s society, capitalism, sales, psychologist in business, and government policies. Even the little chocolate bar at the till.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Abe

Well put my dear fellow

Wallace

Well done with the weight lose and good health to you.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

And during that time millions and millions will die premature deaths because they fail in their lifestyle changes...

Mainly because they are give bad advice from those doctors who follow the "consensus". The vast majority of advice I see on the MSM media and many "medical/dietary" associations is just plain wrong. Many of those deaths can be prevented by providing proper advice and guidelines.

That would be like denying a patient a blood transfusion to keep him alive until he can get a more permanent solution for a bleeding.

Nah, treating obesity with Ozempic is like treating dehydration with an artificial blood transfusion rather than simply giving them a glass of water.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Mainly because they are give bad advice from those doctors who follow the "consensus". The vast majority of advice I see on the MSM media and many "medical/dietary" associations is just plain wrong. Many of those deaths can be prevented by providing proper advice and guidelines.

Wasn't it only recently that the American Diabetic Association recommended filling half your plate with starchy (i.e. high carb (ultimately sugar)) vegetables if you have type 2 diabetes or are pre-diabetic? This is insane because it will spike insulin and promote insulin resistance.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Some have even been withdrawn from sale due to severe side effects.

Shouldn't have been approved in the first place.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Mainly because they are give bad advice from those doctors who follow the "consensus". 

Completely baseless claim, the diets you recommend are also included between those that are abandoned by the vast majority of patients after a couple of years, that means that the be claim, the diets you recommend are also included between those that are

Nah, treating obesity with Ozempic is like treating dehydration with an artificial blood transfusion rather than simply giving them a glass of water.

You have presented nothing that can make that analogy correct, Ozempic do NOT replace the measures that let people lose weight, instead it makes those measures easier to keep. To correct your analogy the drugs would be like giving them access to a water fountain instead of asking them to hydrate by licking dew drops.

Wasn't it only recently that the American Diabetic Association recommended filling half your plate with starchy

Since the recommendation is for NON-starchy vegetables the problem would not be the ADA but reading comprehension,

https://diabetes.org/food-nutrition/eating-healthy

This makes evident another complication, more than half of the American public failt at English literacy proficiency, which means they do not have the minimum level of skill reading and writing to function properly in society, this is reflected for example by people misunderstanding a simple sentence and getting the opposite meaning.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It is a weapon against the processed food cartel that wants us to buy their crap.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Mainly because they are give bad advice from those doctors who follow the "consensus". 

Completely baseless claim, the diets you recommend are also included between those that are abandoned by the vast majority of patients after a couple of years

Now that is a baseless claim. So many who have tried the diet I recommend are amazed at the results, and the ease of achieving those results, often after years or decades of getting nowhere following their doctors' advice and/or treatments. And the benefits are not only for weight loss.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Just perusing recent headlines we see:

The FDA Is Investigating Potentially Serious Side Effects of Weight Loss Drugs

Eat healthy and exercise so that you do not need to rely on these short term solution, laden with dangerous side effects drugs.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So many who have tried the diet I recommend are amazed at the results, and the ease of achieving those results, often after years or decades of getting nowhere following their doctors' advice and/or treatments. And the benefits are not only for weight loss.

Raw Beer, are you talking about keto or carnivore?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Now that is a baseless claim

Not according to the data that clearly demonstrates people following the diets you suggest fail to keep them, not to mention that it is demonstrated they promote cardiac risk and inflammation. That means that the best advice you give is still much worse than what the medical consensus offers.

To disprove the consensus you need much more than "many people I know", at the very least you need well controlled data that is peer reviewed, hearsay is not enough.

Just perusing recent headlines we see:

The FDA Is Investigating Potentially Serious Side Effects of Weight Loss Drugs

And again, that do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the claim you made that the FDA was a failure because it approved the drugs and their use for weight loss, every drug have side effects, some of them serious, when the benefits are still more important that means the drugs are effective and can still be used, specially when they are prescribed under medical vigilance. Sorry but you still have not demonstrated the failure of the FDA that you claim happened.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So many who have tried the diet I recommend are amazed at the results, and the ease of achieving those results, often after years or decades of getting nowhere following their doctors' advice and/or treatments. And the benefits are not only for weight loss.

Raw Beer, are you talking about keto or carnivore?

I was referring to carnivore, but it also applies to keto.

Not according to the data that clearly demonstrates people following the diets you suggest fail to keep them, not to mention that it is demonstrated they promote cardiac risk and inflammation.

Not at all. Carnivore decreases inflammation and cardiac risk.

I already provided evidence from a study (survey) carried out at Harvard on thousands of people following the carnivore diet, they found that out of those who had autoimmune issues, 89% reported an improvement (36% resolved); out of those who had diabetes/insulin resistance, 98% reported an improvement (74% resolved); obesity/overweight: 93%; hypertension: 93% ...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34934897/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I was referring to carnivore, but it also applies to keto.

Both are diets that come with extra risks, are abandoned by the vast majority of the people that will rebound to their previous weight (if not more) and are not recommended as healthy by the professionals, this means that the recommendations you give are much worse than the ones belonging to the consensus of medical professionals.

Not at all. Carnivore decreases inflammation and cardiac risk.

The opposite, as proved by scientific references.

I already provided evidence from a study (survey) carried out at Harvard on thousands of people following the carnivore diet

A study that has been debunked precisely because the first hurdle of a retrospective study (selection) is so flawed that renders all the conclusions worthless.

When the participants self recruit to a study that introduces a serious bias that the authors of a responsible study need to correct, the authors of your reference made no effort to correct it. Not to mention that there was absolutely no evidence that any health problem was solved, even improved, the most that the report says is that the people that self selected to respond the study SAY about their health problem, without any objective data to support what they say.

Meanwhile studies with actual data show data that clearly points to increased risk of inflammation, cardiac problems, etc. Once again the recommendations of the actual experts in the field lead to a better, healthier lifestyle, making yourself a better target of your own criticism.

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/167671

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-024-00984-2

These data demonstrate a mechanistic basis for the adverse impact of excessive dietary protein on cardiovascular risk.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

not recommended as healthy by the professionals, this means that the recommendations you give are much worse than the ones belonging to the consensus of medical professionals.

Which "professionals" are you talking about? There are plenty of medical doctors who recommend keto and carnivore due to the health benefits Raw Beer linked to above.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Believe it or not, but carnivore diet is not high protein. It's high fat, medium protein (about 20% of calories from protein), and extremely low carb. Your references do not appear to be about the carnivore diet.

Do you actually have references showing that the carnivore diet: (1) comes with extra risks and (2) is abandoned by the vast majority.

Those "professionals" who recommend against the carnivore diet are likely not properly trained. Most doctors get almost not training in nutrition and most of those who specialize in nutrition were likely trained in captured institutions. That explains why obesity is so prevalent; if the so-called "consensus" was valid, obesity would not be so common.

And if you want more proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eusUU_7X1Nc

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Which "professionals" are you talking about? There are plenty of medical doctors who recommend keto and carnivore due to the health benefits Raw Beer linked to above.

No medical organization do, "professionals" is not really applicable (as in without quote marks) to people that willingly choose to disregard the scientific evidence and instead promote things irresponsibly for personal gain. As expected there is no field where some people that should know better act unprofessionally, but they are in no way representative of the consensus. Is the same situation as "doctors" that say microbes don't exist and infection is just bad energy accumulating in the body.

Believe it or not, but carnivore diet is not high protein

Nothing to believe, your claim has no basis on reality, as easily as you are unable to provide any source for it. It is considered unhealthy and people that follow it have increased risks for many problems as the actual references provided can clearly indicate.

The moment you are unable to link to a study (one where the participants do not self select and where any kind of objective measurement of health is provided) and you have use youtube videos you are accepting there is no evidence to support what you claimed.

Those "professionals" who recommend against the carnivore diet are likely not properly trained.

They can surely point out the many deficiencies of the reference you tried to use, and they can prove the basis on their recommendations using evidence that you have been unable to disprove, that would mean their training is at least much better than yours.

That explains why obesity is so prevalent; if the so-called "consensus" was valid, obesity would not be so common.

No it does not, because the consensus is that losing weight permanently while remaining healthy is not easy. The obesity problem instead disprove your claim, because if any diet was actually as easy and effective as you misrepresented everybody would be following it, in reality your recommendation is unhealthy and patients end up with at least as much weight as when they begin using it with some extra risks for their health.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

No medical organization do, "professionals" is not really applicable (as in without quote marks) to people that willingly choose to disregard the scientific evidence and instead promote things irresponsibly for personal gain. As expected there is no field where some people that should know better act unprofessionally, but they are in no way representative of the consensus. Is the same situation as "doctors" that say microbes don't exist and infection is just bad energy accumulating in the body.

So what? Most medical and allied organisations are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies to one extent or another - the very organisations that make a ton of money from treating lifestyle-related diseases. But there are plenty of doctors who are able to think for themselves and have their patients' best interests in mind first and foremost, and base their treatment protocols and recommendations on scientific fact that may change as new information comes to light through research and clinical experience. Do you have a problem with that?

because the consensus is that losing weight permanently while remaining healthy is not easy. 

I think a prize is in order here: the first time you've brought a consensus that actually exists.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No medical organization do, "professionals" is not really applicable (as in without quote marks) to people that willingly choose to disregard the scientific evidence and instead promote things irresponsibly for personal gain.

What scientific evidence? You certainly haven't provided any. Ever since I brought up the carnivore diet, you've been linking to unrelated reports about high protein.

That explains why obesity is so prevalent; if the so-called "consensus" was valid, obesity would not be so common.

No it does not, because the consensus is that losing weight permanently while remaining healthy is not easy.

Exactly, if you follow the so-called institutional consensus, losing weight is very difficult.

The obesity problem instead disprove your claim, because if any diet was actually as easy and effective as you misrepresented everybody would be following it

No, the problem is that people are afraid to try it because they are always told by "experts" that it's dangerous.

in reality your recommendation is unhealthy and patients end up with at least as much weight as when they begin using it with some extra risks for their health.

You haven't provided any evidence to support that. The opposite is true, by far (lower weight, increased overall health, decrease health risks). Regarding weight, obese people lose considerable weight on a carnivore diet. Obese and healthy people generally gain significant lean body mass on the diet.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Or in majority of cases in the west ( granted not all but most ), people could try exercise some more self control to stop themselves from eating too much high calorie fast food.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So what? Most medical and allied organisations are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies to one extent or another 

All of them, around the world? in a way that causes the collected evidence to be congruent between groups everywhere for decades? sorry but impossible global conspiracies for which you offer no evidence are not arguments, they are excuses when you find out you have no evidence to support what you believe.

I think a prize is in order here: the first time you've brought a consensus that actually exists.

Yet you have been completely unable to refute any of the consensus that contradict your beliefs, belately recognizing that the consensus say there is no magic diet and that options like keto are unhealthy do nothing to disprove the rest of them, even if you don't want to recognize they exist. You could bring one respected institution that contradicts the consensus, but that strangely never happens, mostly because the consensus is real.

What scientific evidence? You certainly haven't provided any. 

Pretending not being able to see the references provided only makes it more clear you have nothing to refute their conclusions, there is no problem in copy pasting them again, they still prove the extra risks that your recommendations have for people.

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/167671

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-024-00984-2

These data demonstrate a mechanistic basis for the adverse impact of excessive dietary protein on cardiovascular risk.

You on the other hand have not offered any actual evidence that people stick to your recommendations, that is still a baseless claim.

Ever since I brought up the carnivore diet, you've been linking to unrelated reports about high protein.

The articles clearly mention your recommendations as example of diets that produce the problem, meanwhile you could not prove your claim (again) that they should not be included, not even one reference to support a claim easily demonstrated as false. And many of the reports come from decades ago, you tend to think things are centered on your opinions but the antiscientific movement (and the debunking done by experts) is completely independent of your position about it, if anything the problem is how you align your position by default on the antiscientific options.

Exactly, if you follow the so-called institutional consensus, losing weight is very difficult.

Since your recommendations produce the same results, except with higher risks for the health you still fail to demonstrate the consensus can be improved in any way, you offer a much worse option.

No, the problem is that people are afraid to try it because they are always told by "experts" that it's dangerous.

Not at all, if that were the case you could prove very easily that those that are "not afraid" enjoy permanent weight loss, in reality people that try the diets you recommend still fail and recover their weight (if not even more), the excuse you tried to use would not explain why this happen.

In reality is because they don't work, because losing weight is difficult, at least the recommendations of the experts do not have higher risks as the unhealthy diets you recommend.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What scientific evidence? You certainly haven't provided any. 

Pretending not being able to see the references provided only makes it more clear you have nothing to refute their conclusions, there is no problem in copy pasting them again, they still prove the extra risks that your recommendations have for people.

Raw Beer wrote:

Your references do not appear to be about the carnivore diet.

I had a quick look at your 2 papers, and I have to agree with him. How are they related to the carnivore diet?

The articles clearly mention your recommendations as example of diets that produce the problem

If it's so clear, why don't you quote the relevant part, or at least explain how they are related to his diet. Anyone can link to random papers and then ask others to refute their conclusions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I already provided evidence from a study (survey) carried out at Harvard on thousands of people following the carnivore diet, they found that out of those who had autoimmune issues, 89% reported an improvement (36% resolved); out of those who had diabetes/insulin resistance, 98% reported an improvement (74% resolved); obesity/overweight: 93%; hypertension: 93% ...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34934897/

Nice!

I'd bet it's much better (and safer) than what Ozempic can do.

These drugs have way too many severe side effects. Might as well ingest norovirus. Hmmm, maybe someone should market such a product and call in Norovir...

Norovir sounds good, but it needs a Z, like most drugs. How about Norozovir?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites