r/science • u/Wagamaga • Feb 12 '25

Neuroscience The first clinical trial of its kind has found that semaglutide, distributed under the brand name Wegovy, cut the amount of alcohol people drank by about 40% and dramatically reduced people’s desire to drink

https://today.usc.edu/popular-weight-loss-diabetes-drug-shows-promise-in-reducing-cravings-for-alcohol/
19.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

691 comments sorted by

View all comments

887

u/Sugarstache Feb 12 '25

The downstream improvements in population health as a result of the proliferation of these drugs in 10 years are going to be extremely fascinating

622

u/marklein Feb 12 '25

On one hand it's exciting to see what new similar drugs come out based on these positive side effects.

On the other hand this all seems too good to be true and I'm waiting to find out that Wegovy gives people double Alzheimer's or something.

406

u/bass_poodle Feb 12 '25

They think it will give you less alzheimer's, and the phase III studies are underway.

147

u/st1r Feb 13 '25

Yeah seems unlikely at this point that any long term side effects (that haven’t yet been observed) are going to outweigh the incredible all-cause mortality improvements from losing weight and drinking less alcohol.

57

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25

[deleted]

15

u/bass_poodle Feb 13 '25

The SELECT study showed a reduction in cardiovascular event risk in people who were overweight with BMI<30, not only obese (but with other known risk factors too), so personally I think these products may have a favourable risk/benefit profile beyond people with obesity too.

135

u/1h8fulkat Feb 13 '25

Wegovy, now with 40% less alcoholism, 50% less Alzheimer's and 5x the cancer

61

u/oxgon Feb 13 '25

Don't forget 20 percent lower heart attacks and helps cure sleep apnea.

9

u/mynewaccount5 Feb 13 '25

Both those are caused by the weight reduction.

10

u/oxgon Feb 13 '25

Yes all of the benefits as well as some of the negative side effects like muscle loss and hair loss are associated with weight loss. With that said, there are additional benefits for heart health even without weight loss.

4

u/AD7GD Feb 13 '25

I already have cancer, so I'm in!

1

u/Dogsnamewasfrank Feb 13 '25

Did you mean to write 1/5 the cancer? Because there is no cancer increase, and with lower body weight, cancer risk goes down.

63

u/Fat_Ryan_Gosling Feb 12 '25

I feel bad for laughing at this, but you're right. This isn't magic, there have to be some trade-offs somewhere.

196

u/Tall_poppee Feb 12 '25

GLP1 drugs have been around for a couple decades, and there isn't any indication that they cause long term harm or cause say alzheimers or cancer.

277

u/Ouaouaron Feb 12 '25

No, there doesn't. "too good" is not something reality cares about. Sometimes you discover antibiotics, or you make a vaccine and eliminate an entire disease.

Maybe there will be some terrible long-term consequence (in addition to the current side effects), but that's not some sort of karmic guarantee.

53

u/Fried_puri Feb 13 '25

I completely agree. Despite the agonizingly frustrating anti-vax rhetoric these days, vaccines are the closest thing to a miracle that mankind has ever created. It was and is astonishing at what we were able to accomplish with vaccines, and remain one of if not the most important advancements in public health in human history.

This may actually be the wonder-drug. We need to continue testing but for now things are looking so, so promising.

50

u/_Caustic_Complex_ Feb 12 '25

Technically speaking, antibiotics have a trade off in the creation of superbugs

7

u/Mindless_Cucumber526 Feb 13 '25

Or fluoroquinolone antibiotics which disable you for life. R/floxies

11

u/Ouaouaron Feb 12 '25

If the only downside to antibiotics is that some things can't be killed by antibiotics, that's not a trade off, that's just a lack of perfection.

Imagine if you were starving to death, and I offered to give you food. I tell you that if you accept this offer, it will come with a terrible downside: the food doesn't include dessert.

18

u/_Caustic_Complex_ Feb 12 '25

Well no, we’re inadvertently bioengineering bacterial diseases that have the potential to wipe out significant portions of the human race, especially those in city centers. COVID on steroids that cannot be stopped or treated.

It’s more like I’m starving now so you offer me free food in perpetuity, with the caveat that after X years of eating your food, no food will nourish me anymore.

14

u/mud074 Feb 13 '25

I was under the impression that the problem with antibiotics was it produces antibiotic resistant bacteria which would result in the return of that disease as a major problem, not that it makes bacteria all-powerful.

17

u/jaggederest Feb 13 '25

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are, in general, less fit than regular bacteria. Antibiotic resistance isn't free, so if you eliminate a particular antibiotic for a while (a few years at least) in a given area, resistance drops back to near zero, because the bacteria stop wasting their energy on it.

5

u/Wischiwaschbaer Feb 13 '25

Also the resistant bacteria become much, much more vulnerable to phages. So if we actually put resources into finding the right phages, we could kill most resistant bacteria. But money is as always more important than lifes.

40

u/appleshaveprotein Feb 13 '25

I mean, the trade off with antibiotics is that they tend to kill off a lot of your important gut biome. Bacteriophages have taken a back seat unfortunately, which could be better at targeting specific bacteria. Antibiotics sometimes nuke your gut.

12

u/mynewaccount5 Feb 13 '25

On one hand I won't die from infection, on the other hand I may have an ouchy stomach for a few days.

6

u/appleshaveprotein Feb 13 '25

It definitely goes beyond an ouchy stomach. Some of your gut bacteria take months to come back after being killed off from antibiotics. And having a balanced gut biome is really important for things like digestion, mood, sleep, and a bunch of other stuff.

So as you can imagine, the more frequently you take antibiotics, the more problematic it becomes for your health.

8

u/Havelok Feb 13 '25

Killing off your gut biome without replenishment can have long term, serious side effects. Thankfully, most people accidentally eat probiotic foods (fermented foods, probiotic yogurt etc) so they aren't chronically affected. Some people go years without figuring out the cause of their constant GI issues.

-7

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25

[deleted]

10

u/RhettGrills Feb 13 '25

Then you should probably revisit broad spectrum antibiotics and gut microbes

3

u/oxgon Feb 13 '25

I found this on a ask science and saved it

"Probably will get buried but I'm finishing my PhD and I study antimicrobial resistance in wastewater as a proxy for a community microbiome. I can talk a little bit about how the gut bacteria respond to antibiotics. This is such a cool topic, so great question!

TONS of studies exist in pretty much every species from earthworm to orangutan, with a lot of similar results. Essentially the gut microbiome is a super complex community of bacteria, some in competition and some working together. In the gut, and in most microbiomes, we see a thing called functional redundancy. This means that a lot of bacteria have the same metabolic functions - they use the same foods or produce the same products, but are not necessarily in competition. Higher gut diversity is protective.

When we take a broad-spectrum antibiotic, we have to take the whole course in order to raise the concentration in our bodies up to a sufficient level for a sufficient amount of time. With that first dose, we often don't reach the "minimum inhibitory concentration" of the drug, or the level that kills susceptible bacteria. Low levels of antibiotics can drive mutations for drug resistance.

So, we randomly push for mutations in ALL the bacteria, not just the harmful ones, but some have a better tendency to survive or are already inherently resistant... and this happens differently in every single person. Some bacteria survive antibiotic exposure, both the good and the bad, and these can repopulate the gut.

Now the gut has genes for antibiotic resistance, and the composition of the community is less diverse. Often the person doesn't experience negative side-effects because of the functional redundancy - all processes continue as normal, even if some species are entirely wiped out. The gut then can be repopulated overtime with the foods you consume (not just probiotics), the water you drink, and even the things you touch.

Sometimes, with reduced diversity your gut is more vulnerable - you no longer have the second string of bacteria that can help with essential processes. Other times too much gets wiped out and then the gut has trouble recovering essential functions of nutrient digestion and absorption.

Studies look at the impact of gut microbiome composition on obesity, depression, autism, mortality, cancer survival, bipolar, immune system strength, infants' growth rates, sleep quality, psoriasis, and more!

However, most studies suggest that above all, DIET MATTERS. Some studies show that eating foods high in alkaloids and inulin, in probiotic bacteria (like yogurt, kimchi, other fermented foods), and higher vegetable and fruit consumption, all promote gut diversity, which can restore gut health after antibiotics and can keep the gut healthy.

Sources: "The influence of antibiotics and dietary components on gut microbiota" Dudek-Wicher et al.; "Distinct impact of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and resistome: a longitudinal multicenter cohort study" Willmann et al.; "Fecal microbial diversity and structure are associated with diet quality in the multiethnic cohort adiposity phenotype study" Maskarinec et al.; "Diet-microbiome-disease: investigating diet's influence on disease resistance through alteration of the gut microbiome" Harris et al.

TL;DR: Diversity matters, diet matters. Eat more veggies."

48

u/guydud3bro Feb 12 '25

The question is what are the trade offs vs. obesity, which we know is linked to all kinds of long term health problems.

11

u/Fat_Ryan_Gosling Feb 12 '25

Sure, yes. I mean running for exercise will eventually damage your knees, but proportionally the net effect of running for years and years on the rest of your body will be more than worth the cost of some cartridge. I just hope it's going to be in a similar vein rather than "double Alzheimer's."

43

u/CatInAPottedPlant Feb 12 '25

running for exercise will eventually damage your knees

this isn't true either. it's a common myth, but it's the opposite if anything%2C%20says%20Dr.)

41

u/ParsivaI Feb 12 '25

Well the thing is it doesn’t make you lose weight any differently than normal methods. You just eat less while on it. The chemical itself is found in nature.

Sure look, if i grow another arm I’ll let you know haha.

34

u/SquareVehicle Feb 13 '25

Life isn't a videogame, not everything has a tradeoff because it would throw the game mechanics off. And there have been plenty of "magical" drugs like antibiotics, vaccines, satins, and more.

19

u/octocuddles Feb 12 '25

But aren’t there some scientific/medical studies that are just great discoveries? Like acetaminophen or ibuprofen, or antibiotics, or the cure to polio? Not to say that painkillers like that don’t have minor stomach risks , or that antibiotic resistance isn’t a thing, but overall I don think there was ever “the other shoe” that just dropped. They just…. Changed and became part of our world. 

-2

u/Wischiwaschbaer Feb 13 '25

But aren’t there some scientific/medical studies that are just great discoveries? Like acetaminophen

Acetaminophen doesn't work better than placebo at reducing pain. Works well at lowering fevers though.

11

u/__STAX__ Feb 13 '25

no there doesn’t have to be some trade off. Why would chemical reactions care about what they do to our bodies. There’s no more reason they would be actively harmful than helpful.

38

u/CatInAPottedPlant Feb 12 '25

that's not how science works, there's absolutely no requirement for trade offs, at least deal breaking ones (since no medication is free from side effects).

what's the tradeoff for insulin? penicillin? the covid vaccine? what about the smallpox vaccine?

it's reasonable to be skeptical, but the notion that "it's too good to be true" is rooted in some fundamental principles is wrong, there's tons of medicines that you could consider too good to be true because they saved millions of lives and reduced countless amounts of suffering and government expense. I don't see why that's not potentially the case here.

4

u/Character-Pin8704 Feb 13 '25

Though it's pedantic, the covid vaccine killed a non-zero amount of people and had serious side effects in some part of the population. As with any vaccine. Unlike insulin which is necessary to keep staying alive for pretty much everyone you proscribe it to, some of the people who had negative vaccination outcomes otherwise might have been fine. That then constitutes a trade-off that does have to be examined; do we gain more from vaccination overall and you know, what is it's negative outcome rate vs. benefit. Several covid vaccines specifically were pulled because they basically failed that test (and we had available alternatives).

17

u/CatInAPottedPlant Feb 13 '25

like I said, no medicine is free from side effects.

however let's be clear, my point was about relative good. when someone says "it's too good to be true, I'm just waiting for the bad stuff to come out", they're not talking about some marginal percent of people who experience side effects, they're talking about something serious and wide spread enough to outweigh the benefit of a drug entirely and pull it from use.

if we use "some people have negative outcomes" as our metric like you said, then I'd argue literally every medicine ever invented is "too good to be true". but that's clearly not what people mean when they say this in relation to GLP1 medications.

20

u/Why_You_Mad_ Feb 12 '25

They said the same thing about statins decades ago, turns out there are in fact miracle drugs.

10

u/CatInAPottedPlant Feb 13 '25

Yet there's still no shortage of misinformation spread around making people fear/hate statins. You really can't win with the general public, many of whom seem eager to dismiss modern medicine even if they're the ones who would benefit the most.

4

u/Qadim3311 Feb 13 '25

Hey, maybe you can tell me something I don’t know yet; my mother has this idea that statins are somehow causative of Alzheimer’s disease and I have no idea where she got that from nor any concept of what I would be arguing against specifically. Is this some known myth that I just missed?

10

u/Why_You_Mad_ Feb 13 '25

I hadn't heard of any link between Alzheimer's and statins, but according to the most recent research I can find, they can help to reduce the likelihood of dementia and Alzheimer's. That's not super surprising, given that one of the hallmarks of dementia and Alzheimer's is inflammation, and statins improve upon that by improving vascular function.

https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/29/5/804/6454065?login=false https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2995387/

I would think that it's unlikely that something that improves vascular health by reducing bad cholesterol would be detrimental to mental health, simply due to how much overall brain health depends on having good vascular health.

3

u/Qadim3311 Feb 13 '25

Thanks for pushing some resources I can look into!

I’m probably gonna end up arguing with a wall again, but I appreciate you being responsive.

9

u/Withermaster4 Feb 13 '25

Does there?

What's the trade off of vaccines?

3

u/IceMaverick13 Feb 13 '25

The trade off of vaccines is that society collectively gets frequent reminders that anti-vaxxers exist.

Sometimes the tradeoff is more metaphorical than physiological.

8

u/SteffanSpondulineux Feb 12 '25

The catch is that you need to keep taking it forever

19

u/dragon-queen Feb 13 '25

Well, that’s the case with many other drugs, like drugs for arthritis, or insulin, or blood thinners.  

9

u/IceMaverick13 Feb 13 '25

I've not heard of this one being reported.

My anecdotal counter is my mother got taken off her script for semiglutide after her blood sugar and weight levels reached healthy levels and as far as I've spoken to her about it, she's been off of it for 2 years now with the only issue being that she needs to eat like some fruit or something between dinner and bedtime to not feel hungry by the time she goes to bed at like 1AM. But she's maintained her levels ever since the doctors took her off of it and hasn't noticed any side effects other than the "new normal" semiglutide made her dining routine feel has since returned to baseline human levels.

2

u/exiledinruin Feb 13 '25

how long was she on it? I wanna get on it but I would have to pay for it out of pocket. I can do that for a while but indefinitely is problematic

2

u/IceMaverick13 Feb 13 '25

She was taking it for about a year and a half.

3

u/A1000eisn1 Feb 13 '25

You don't have to. Getting off the drug doesn't directly cause weight gain. If you maintain the same eating habits when not medicated you won't gain weight. Your appetite will just return to normal which is what causes the weight gain.

1

u/SteffanSpondulineux Feb 13 '25

Yeah but you won't maintain the same eating habits

1

u/Fat_Ryan_Gosling Feb 12 '25

Now that is a catch!

2

u/bsubtilis Feb 13 '25

It may seem like magic when it's only righting a wrong in the body. People with other malfunctioning issues take medicines to correct theirs, this would be no different.

Also, when your body is malfunctioning too much as a base state, the possible side effects of medication are often well worth it. I say this as someone on multiple medications that risk harming my heart, and I really do not want that. The life quality I have on the medications unfortunately are well worth the tradeoff.

2

u/Jimmy_McNulty2025 Feb 13 '25

Not really—there aren’t dramatic tradeoffs for penicillin, despite it radically extending human life. Some drugs are just unmitigated goods.

1

u/fcocyclone Feb 13 '25

Of course its not magic. What it does is make it easier for people to do the right things consistently. There doesn't "have to be some trade offs". In the case of both food and alcohol, you're talking about the messages that would otherwise push compulsive activities, whether food, alcohol, or other things, being quieted down so someone can get a handle on their own behavior.

1

u/LingonberryReady6365 Feb 13 '25

A medicine without trade offs is not magic. Uncommon, sure. But totally within the realm of possibility.

1

u/zninjamonkey Feb 13 '25

Why do you wish for that?

1

u/gay_manta_ray Feb 13 '25

there doesn't have to be any trade offs in biology

1

u/Wischiwaschbaer Feb 13 '25

These drugs also make you lose musculature, far beyond what you'd lose during reegular weight loss. Actually good for the heart, which leads to all the positive heart-health effects, but not great for skeletal musculature. You kinda need that to keep your body going and everything from hurting. So if you are on them, weight training is basically a must.

Other than that, I doubt we'll see a lot of negative side effects.

1

u/Sillypenguin2 Feb 13 '25

Sometimes medicine does work well. Lipitor, insulin, polio vaccine.

2

u/ThreeBelugas Feb 13 '25

Wegovy is expensive. Having less money is an unhealthy side effect.

2

u/Wischiwaschbaer Feb 13 '25

These drugs also make you lose musculature, far beyond what you'd lose during reegular weight loss. Actually good for the heart, which leads to all the positive heart-health effects, but not great for skeletal musculature. You kinda need that to keep your body going and everything from hurting. So if you are on them, weight training is basically a must.

Other than that, I doubt we'll see a lot of negative side effects.

1

u/Sassrepublic Feb 13 '25

It prevents Alzheimer’s and dementia actually. 

1

u/PM_ME_BOYSHORTS Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25

Remember, when judging side effects you have to compare it against the negative effects of both obesity and potentially alcoholism.

1

u/ShrimpSherbet Feb 13 '25

Exactly my thinking and why I haven't started on them yet. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it just hasn't happened.

2

u/marklein Feb 13 '25

Well... some negative side effects are known. It reduces muscle mass, which means you need to weight train more. If I were dangerously obese then I'd take the small unknown risk over the known huge risks of obesity. Gotta do that risk/reward analysis that humans are so bad at.

1

u/Vega3gx Feb 14 '25

Ever since the nuclear age, our culture has been conditioned by sci-fi and fantasy to be wary of any new technology. What were the downsides to asthma inhalers, pasteurized milk, and lithium ion batteries? I'm sure you could argue a few things, but all three of these freed us from a problem we previously believed was unsolvable

1

u/NetStaIker Feb 16 '25

People putting stuff in their bodies without anybody truly knowing the long term effects, I hope it works out but I’ll refrain for now.

-2

u/slimejumper Feb 12 '25

i’m think of that popular arthritis painkiller that gave old people heart attacks and was withdrawn from the market. I am suspicious of companies selling very profitable drugs, but some subtle effects just can’t be detected in a clinical trial.

13

u/VisNihil Feb 12 '25

i’m think of that popular arthritis painkiller that gave old people heart attacks and was withdrawn from the market.

The one that made FDA reevaluate all NSAIDs and realize those risks are present across the board?

33

u/ShAd0wS Feb 12 '25

These aren't new drugs. Millions of consumers have been taking Wegovy (Ozempic) since 2017. There have been a massive amount of clinical trials with side effect monitoring. It is likely that any side effects occuring within ~10 years would have been detected by now.

25

u/Gavel_Naser Feb 12 '25

Additionally, the first GLP-1 based drugs were approved in 2005 (exenatide). So, this type of pharmacology has been clinically used for over 20 years with all the science and trial data that comes with that.

9

u/HopandBrew Feb 12 '25

So were PPIs and it wasn't until people had been taking them for 20+ years that they started noticing some significant side effects.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7887997/#:~:text=However%2C%20widespread%20PPI%20use%20has,respiratory%20and%20gastrointestinal%20infections%2C%20and

14

u/ShAd0wS Feb 12 '25

It actually has been 20 years since the first GLP-1s came to market, the first was in 2005.

It's not impossible that there are long-term side effects, but they are some of the most studied drugs in existence for the past 20 years.

10

u/CatInAPottedPlant Feb 12 '25

Not to mention, we already know the side effects of being obese for 20 years, and they're far worse than anything likely to come up in long term studies of these medications.

2

u/HopandBrew Feb 12 '25

I'm not saying there are. I'm just saying, it wouldn't be the first time.

-1

u/Iceykitsune3 Feb 12 '25

Yeah, an uncle of mine lost the love of his life to Phen-Fen.

0

u/bringbackswg Feb 13 '25

“There are no free lunches in nature” always freaks me out because it’s so true.

0

u/mynewaccount5 Feb 13 '25

On one hand there's this great drug that helps people

On the other hand, let me just make up some fake reason to be upset.

0

u/hah_you_wish Feb 13 '25

Semaglutide shrinks mouse hearts, even mice who were lean to begin with at the start of semaglutide treatment. If that happens in humans too, think of all the young people taking it. How will this affect their cardiovascular health as they age? What about those who go on to develop hypertension, can their smaller hearts adapt? We truly have no idea of the long-term consequences.

https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacbts.2024.07.006

55

u/Smodphan Feb 12 '25

I am also interested in the coincidental reactions as well. I want to see how many fewer people ever become alcoholics. I feel like its going to have to extend even further yhan 10 years, though, because our data is so skewed by covid drinking habits. It's going to look like it fell off a cliff and then normalize over time.

31

u/sbNXBbcUaDQfHLVUeyLx Feb 12 '25

I don't know if it will have a measurable impact on people becoming alcoholics, because access to the medication is inherently reactive. If you walk into a doctor at 18 a 180 lb male and ask for semaglutide, you aren't going to get it. Even if it got approved for treating alcoholism, you aren't going to get it until you're already demonstrating alcoholic behavior.

26

u/Smodphan Feb 12 '25

It will have an impact because alcoholics wont be drinking in front of their kids. That's the information I really want. Transitive impact. Parents don't drink or drink less, so they don't foster drinking in their future family tree. The simple act of not having alcohol in your home will prevent kids from developing early habits.

I have a family full of functional alcoholics. I often wonder if the only reason I don't drink is that my first gf had non functioning alcoholics for parents. I always turned it down when offered, but I also always had access at home. But, she was always there escaping from her own family, so I never drank like my friends and family until I was well into college.

12

u/sbNXBbcUaDQfHLVUeyLx Feb 12 '25

Ah, I see what you're saying. Kids won't learn to use alcohol as an unhealthy coping strategy in the first place. That makes sense.

1

u/Koalatime224 Feb 13 '25

It's probably not only kids. Social drinking is a very real phenomenon. In a lot of places it is heavily tied into work culture, but even then a few people changing their drinking habits can impact an entire group.

10

u/iam98pct Feb 12 '25

Aka The next generation with their fancy new extended lifespans.

9

u/CitizenCue Feb 12 '25

It’ll be interesting to see whether certain societies recognize the benefits and help them proliferate. We could end up with pretty dramatic differences in population health, even more than we already have.

9

u/Pyrimidine10er Feb 13 '25

Dude, I was talking about this exact thought with another colleague. It really will be extremely interesting to see if the GLP-1 patients have a decreased rate of heart failure, CAD, strokes / MIs, MAFLD, all cause death, etc. when the timelines hit 20+ yrs. I'll bet there's going to be some crazy citations on at-least a few phase 4 trial papers.

11

u/c_swartzentruber Feb 12 '25

Well, not going to make much of a difference in US population health at a macro level as long as it remains extremely common for companies to have a specific carveout for weight loss drugs of any kind, and largely regardless of other comorbidities outside perhaps active T1D. Which is kind of crazy given the amount that could likely be saved in heart attacks, strokes, and other future medical treatments, but that's the American health care system for you.

13

u/enocenip Feb 12 '25

I think there will be a market for cheaper versions. A black market already exists, these drugs can be accessed at a couple hundred bucks/month by people who are determined, risk tolerant, and not rich. Some company will produce a GLP-1 and tap that market.

Also Novo Nordisk didn't know what they had for a good portion of the lifespan of Semaglutide's patent, generic versions are probably 7 years out.

6

u/Dull-Maintenance9131 Feb 13 '25

Hell reputable compounding pharmacies aren't even black market and can be a couple hundred a month. Teleheath included.

-12

u/grummanae Feb 12 '25

I'm not denying this or a science Denier

I am type 2 Diabetic ... I lead a sedentary lifestyle my job and side hustle are very computer centric. A HEAVY soda drinker ... I could easily down a 2 liter a day still ... and that's slowed down from my younger days

I've replaced regular with diet

And cleaned up my diet barely and want / need to get back to the gym

But I'm very reluctant to go on these as I've heard bad side effects

Now I have seen major shifts in diet and or activity levels individually in 2 cases not cure type 2 diabetes but make people non medication dependent...

I would like to see longterm use studies for all medications like this versus activity and diet changes.

Again not denying the efficacy or positive side effects, but North American Society has culturally gotten to the " quick " fix option

I have seen Gastric Bypass patients loose weight ... and gain it all back and then some

38

u/WeinMe Feb 12 '25 edited Feb 12 '25

What's your solution to make sure people don't need the "quick" fix option?

Life has ups and downs, and our biology is complex and diverse. Appetite, impulse control, calorie burning, etc.

So far, no Instagram profile or tip, no nutritionist, no healthcare professional, no one has managed to make any measurable change to the obesity problem on a national, and much less so, international level.

What we're seeing here is a solution to modern-day addiction/temptation. A solution to something that has only developed negatively in every country in the world: Obesity

It is indeed a quick fix. A quick fix to a global health issue, which no nation seems to have been able to reduce in the past decades.

It's the pragmatic solution. And maybe not the only solution on an individual level, but on a global level, it absolutely is the only solution right now.

4

u/anjubsm Feb 12 '25

i like this frame of it -- a pragmatic solution. not a full or perfect solution but safe and good enough.

-9

u/grummanae Feb 12 '25

Like I stated ... I'm not making this about willpower or effort

And your right for some this may be the only option But I also think that along with a medication to provide the quick fix in something that can be addiction based there needs to be more in depth treatment and mental health care.

I agree that the short term benefits of weight loss and reducing the desire for alcohol have significant health benefits, and may in fact give the person the time they need to develop a healthy relationship with food etc where as with non treatment physical health may deteriorate to a point of no return.

However the quick fix mentality is what's driving high demand for these drugs at this moment in time

16

u/WeinMe Feb 12 '25 edited Feb 12 '25

What's wrong with the high demand for these drugs?

It's not a quick fix mentality. Like I said: It's pragmatic

We are animals existing in a capitalist society, designed to motivate us to eat highly nutritious products morning, noon, and evening. Products that are designed to target our very basic instincts for the products' own success.

As a species, we stand no chance against this temptation. We can't educate ourselves out of this structure and basic instinct. So either we target capitalism, or we improve ourselves artificially.

-15

u/grummanae Feb 12 '25

People are using them as a quick weight loss fix

18

u/WeinMe Feb 12 '25

Yes, what is the issue?

I simply fail to see the problem here.

7

u/Zarathustra_d Feb 12 '25

The same could be argued for most type 2 diabetic ,hypertension , cholesterol, and heart disease drugs. Do you think we should stop prescribing metformin when most could just, you know, not eat as much?

Only, at least preventing the root cause (obesity, and poor diet) is healthier than contined obesity and just management of the symptoms.

16

u/anjubsm Feb 12 '25

i have seen others disregard these medications as the "easy way out," "quick fix," etc. I disagree. it still takes time, effort, and appropriate healthy choices.

Do you consider insulin or diabetic oral medications an "easy way out," or a tool to help you maintain proper blood sugar levels? People who are heavily overweight and/or diabetic may need this extra tool to help them get to their long-term health goal. and why shouldn't they let themselves use it?

i have seen what the end-of-life complications for a multi-decade diabetic person look like. Terrible, painful. It catches up to you. Loss of function in circulatory, kidney, heart, eye systems... ending with loss of her feet, toe by toe (she wouldn't amputate). All i can tell you, I decided I need to take use of ALL the (safe) tools that I CAN, to try to mitigate the negative cumulative effects that would be coming for me in my future decades.

automatic reddit caveat - to each his own; this is not medical advice; etc etc.

-5

u/grummanae Feb 12 '25

I am not saying they shouldn't but I know of people taking it just for weight loss ... without wanting to make said changes

I agree that there is benefits for Diabetics and that after they use all of their tools and lifestyle changes that these may be needed still

6

u/thrawtes Feb 12 '25

I know of people taking it just for weight loss ... without wanting to make said changes

What's wrong with that?

3

u/ParkinsonHandjob Feb 12 '25

He probably thinks everyone is born equal with an equal brain. It’s always the reason these «you have to want it, just make a choice» people have that mentality.

0

u/_YodaMacey Feb 13 '25

My mom did it just for weight loss, and has made no other healthy choices to go along with it. So yes she lost the weight, but is also frail and probably malnourished. I grant, she’s also doing this through a “med spa.”

1

u/Qadim3311 Feb 13 '25

Why does semaglutide need to come after all the other stuff? For moral purity? That just doesn’t make sense.

7

u/thrawtes Feb 12 '25

But I'm very reluctant to go on these as I've heard bad side effects

They're well studied and the side effects are fairly rare. This always comes off as a disingenuous "I heard a thing on Facebook" concern.

3

u/grummanae Feb 12 '25

I have 2 friends that have adverse reactions

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '25

[deleted]

8

u/DrXaos Feb 12 '25

Aren't these relatively new compounds?

The class of them? No. The newest ones are more effective at weight loss than the older ones but the pharmaceutical pathway has been in play for decades.

The long term effects of obesity and alcoholism are known and negative and severe.

If the choice is "fully healthy and no drugs", take that, but realistically the choice is "not healthy now and a vague hope I'll be fully healthy with no drugs despite no success so far and no scientific evidence there's a high chance I'll get there"

vs

"probably get better with the drugs a lot faster".

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '25

[deleted]

2

u/DrXaos Feb 12 '25

GLP-1 agonists so far seem significantly safer than any other drug people might use for those goals. Some of the beneficial side effects are lower risk of kidney and liver diseases.

6

u/Zarathustra_d Feb 12 '25

Well, long term SE would need to be worse than for Obesity for them to be a bad risk/benefit proposal. That's not a high bar to clear, Obesity has very well known long term dangers, and short term for that matter.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Zarathustra_d Feb 12 '25

The rich will always be able to do what they want.

Insurance shouldn't cover this w/o clear diagnostic criteria, and those should not include people clearly in a healthy weight range just doing it for cosmetic reasons.

However, people with FU money are still going to be able to find a "concierge" Doctor and a compounding pharmacy to get what they want. This can drive up prices due to demand. But, I don't really have a solution to that, at least not one that would make it harder for people that could really benefit from getting it.

2

u/thrawtes Feb 12 '25

Aren't these relatively new compounds?

No.

We don't know the long-term effects these have on humans yet.

Yes we do.

People have been using this same line about these same drugs for over a decade now and we'll continue to hear it for another 50 years because it has never been out of genuine concern.

0

u/OCE_Mythical Feb 13 '25

Kinda wish we could sort out the root causes or more pesky illnesses. The need for these drugs is caused by our food choices being terrible for our bodies, why cut yourself consistently just because we have great bandages?