This essay pulls together a few threads from pieces I've written over the past months on my blog, where I dig into rabbit holes like GLP-1 economics among other things.
If the pharma side interests you, I just wrote up Novo's rise and fall as Europe's most valuable company:
GLP-1 drugs, as I understand it, reduce appetite. They don't magically add nutrients to the body. Of course the body will reduce cravings for alcohol, nicotine, and gambling. Nutrients would be prioritized over the poisons such as alcohol and nicotine. Additionally, why would the body prioritize what it considers fruitless dopamine release (gambling) when there are no nutrients coming in. The body literally can't afford to sit around and gamble since that resource isn't directly transferrable into food. It's literally in a starvation state.
But please, tell me how it's better than finally doing some exercise and eating right.
How did you get from reduced appetite to starvation state? I'm not on one of these drugs myself, but from friends I've been talking to, it seems like (after a bit of dosage tuning) it's reducing their appetite to what would be expected from a person who never was obese. So they do lose weight relatively rapidly, especially at the start, but I don't see why we should equate weight loss with starvation.
As for "how it's better", - the answer is clearly that unlike "exercise and eating right", these drugs are leading to positive behavioral change at scale. I'm perhaps slightly exaggerating, but to the best of my knowledge, no other substance over the last several thousand years has had such a clear positive effect on humanity as a whole.
So you went from know it "reduces appetite" to make a bunch of conjectures about why it affects other things
> But please, tell me how it's better than finally doing some exercise and eating right.
Because it actually works well?
Good ol' fashioned gumption doesn't work, no matter how crankily and haughtily you say it. GLP-1s do
Also, you don't mention why the things you listed are bad. Any weight loss will require a calorie deficit, which has the same "starvation" you're so aghast at.
Lack of resource adds stress to the body, plain and simple. Exercising without a caloric deficit can build muscle. Weight loss without exercise is all loss no gain while maintaining a stressful state on the body.
And "good ol' fashioned gumption" does work, at least for me. (Sample size: 1)
This essay pulls together a few threads from pieces I've written over the past months on my blog, where I dig into rabbit holes like GLP-1 economics among other things.
If the pharma side interests you, I just wrote up Novo's rise and fall as Europe's most valuable company:
https://philippdubach.com/posts/novo-was-europes-most-valuab...
Thanks for sharing. I quickly skimmed through the latest article on Novo and it looks quite interesting. Bookmarked for later exploration.
GLP-1 drugs, as I understand it, reduce appetite. They don't magically add nutrients to the body. Of course the body will reduce cravings for alcohol, nicotine, and gambling. Nutrients would be prioritized over the poisons such as alcohol and nicotine. Additionally, why would the body prioritize what it considers fruitless dopamine release (gambling) when there are no nutrients coming in. The body literally can't afford to sit around and gamble since that resource isn't directly transferrable into food. It's literally in a starvation state.
But please, tell me how it's better than finally doing some exercise and eating right.
How did you get from reduced appetite to starvation state? I'm not on one of these drugs myself, but from friends I've been talking to, it seems like (after a bit of dosage tuning) it's reducing their appetite to what would be expected from a person who never was obese. So they do lose weight relatively rapidly, especially at the start, but I don't see why we should equate weight loss with starvation.
As for "how it's better", - the answer is clearly that unlike "exercise and eating right", these drugs are leading to positive behavioral change at scale. I'm perhaps slightly exaggerating, but to the best of my knowledge, no other substance over the last several thousand years has had such a clear positive effect on humanity as a whole.
Still don't understand why we need positive behavioral changes "at scale," but I'm going to leave it at: if it works, I'm happy for you.
Because currently we negative self harming behavior at scale, it seems very clear.
So you went from know it "reduces appetite" to make a bunch of conjectures about why it affects other things
> But please, tell me how it's better than finally doing some exercise and eating right.
Because it actually works well?
Good ol' fashioned gumption doesn't work, no matter how crankily and haughtily you say it. GLP-1s do
Also, you don't mention why the things you listed are bad. Any weight loss will require a calorie deficit, which has the same "starvation" you're so aghast at.
Lack of resource adds stress to the body, plain and simple. Exercising without a caloric deficit can build muscle. Weight loss without exercise is all loss no gain while maintaining a stressful state on the body.
And "good ol' fashioned gumption" does work, at least for me. (Sample size: 1)
Define “stress”.
Calorie restriction is demonstrably life-extending in multiple species (that it’s feasible to test it in).