8 ms·

Human civilization is built on the creation of shortcuts. Insulin is a shortcut for T1 diabetics to avoid death.

akira2501 2y ago
Insulin is not a "shortcut." It's a genuine product of the human body. Some people just don't produce enough in response to other metabolic changes.
monero-xmr 2y ago
Perhaps a better phrasing would be, "There is no free lunch." If you prefer to take Ozempic rather than monitoring caloric intake and exercising, then there are consequences. But if the consequences are worth it, is up to the individual.
- lnsru 2y ago
  I am the guy with an appointment with Ozempic prescribing doctor. I will seriously think about it twice. “Normal” starving does not have any very rare and very bad consequences. It’s just very very difficult.
- beardedwizard 2y ago
  Someone reading this might assume its zero sum to you - as if people on Ozempic have not already been exercising and monitoring caloric intake without the associated weight loss/health results they desire - and have only chosen it because they don't want to try something else. I'm sure you aren't trying to come across as fat shaming, but the reality is of course not zero sum. Diet and exercise doesn't magically work for the entire population. Diet and exercise definitely worked for me but im not willing to be a sample size of 1 in the face of so many others with legitimate stories.
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    Diet alone is 100% guaranteed to cause you to lose weight. It really is as easy as counting calories. It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to gain, or maintain weight, if you cut caloric intake sufficiently.
    - copperx 2y ago
      You are not wrong. Starving yourself works, obviously. What doesn't work is maintaining people in a state of starvation. It becomes extremely hard if there are other tasks stealing focus (for example, work), or if you have a high basal metabolic rate, or if you have diabetes, etc.
    - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
      Yes, and abstaining from alcohol is guaranteed to stop alcoholism! It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to be an alcoholic if you cut alcohol intake sufficiently. It's so simple, really. (See the problem here?)
      - kbelder 2y ago
        I see what you're claiming is the problem.
    - beardedwizard 2y ago
      This is an intellectually dishonest statement.
    - intermerda 2y ago
      Eating is 100% guaranteed to cure starvation. Not drinking is 100% guaranteed to cure alcoholism. Buying a house is 100% guaranteed to solve homelessness. It's really that easy.
    - averageRoyalty 2y ago
      Agreed. And if you want to stop smoking or gambling it really is as easy as not doing it. Except reality is it's hard. Addiction is a real issue, people have underlying compulsions and habits as difficult to break as with physical pressure. For some people monitoring caloric intake isn't the option it is for others.
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      No one here is stating that physics stops working for fat people. Obviously, your body needs an energy source to function and when you deprive it of that energy source it will go to your energy reserves. There might be some woefully ignorant people that claim otherwise elsewhere, but that's not the position of the person you are referring to. But you're saying "it is as easy as doing activity x" without concern for the difficulty of that activity. There are a wide variety of reasons some people might get fat, but once you are fat, it is far more difficult to get not-fat than it was to get there in the first place. There are a wide variety of feedback loops within the body, including epigenetic ones, that make it much harder to lose weight and keep it off. Once upon a time, it was trivial for me to not eat garbage food, or too much of any sort of food. I had more trouble trying to eat enough to be in a large enough caloric surplus to get enough protein in and stay in a large enough caloric surplus to build muscle. I never had "food noise" or anything of that nature. Then life happened, my circumstances changed, and I had less time to worry about food. I spent more time going out with co-workers and friends eating and drinking. Other nights, I was too busy to cook, and ordered in more. My weight went up, and before I really realized it, I had put on significant weight. And I realized that something I had found trivial before, something that had taken zero willpower, that I had never struggled with... was something that was incredibly mentally taxing. Could I count calories and lose weight? Of course. Could I add exercise back in to my routine? Yep. But it was difficult in a way that I never had understood back when I was fit, in a way that I never would have believed could happen to me. And as soon as I got busy again, or had other things occur in my life that took priority, the mental effort to keep "just counting calories" and push down my food cravings and hunger no longer seemed worth it. I could exert a huge portion of my willpower on this, struggle with it, remove my capacity to spend more time having care and empathy for others, forcefully deprioritize other things in life... or I could use a GLP-1. I know which path made sense for me, and it's been a hugely beneficial thing in my life.
- samatman 2y ago
  It's true, it isn't a free lunch. You, or your insurer, has to pay for it. It needs to be injected. It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. And so on.
  - trogdor 2y ago
    >It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. Yeah, good luck with that. GLP-1 agonists reduce your desire for, and for many people, your ability to consume things like “a pint of ice cream three times a day.” That’s kinda the point.
    - samatman 2y ago
      The sarcasm in my reply did not come across it would seem. "No free lunch" does not in any sense imply that there are no positive-sum decisions to be made.
      - trogdor 2y ago
        Whoosh. I’m slow.
Barrin92 2y ago
Civilization is built on long term sustainable practice, shortcuts in response to the lack of such practices is how civilizations burn down. Obviously T1 diabetics need to take medication because there's not much else they can do whatever side effects that has, but the topic is obviously relevant and posted here because these drugs are currently being used/abused for weight loss. Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) that is what a healthy human civilization would do, instead of opting for drugs with utterly unknown side effects, potentially really bad ones, like in this case.
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  > Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) Just because it exists doesn't mean it's statistically applicable to a population of people. I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, sustainable and side effect free ways to lose weight exists at a statistically significant level. If you're 100+ lbs overweight and you lose it all without any medical intervention for over 5 yrs you're basically a statistical freak.
  - renewedrebecca 2y ago
    Not to mention that the human body is completely opposed to losing weight, and will do anything it can to convince you that what you really need to do is to gain it back.
    - jermaustin1 2y ago
      This was something that astounded me about my weight. It is static. Has been static since I gained it all (when my thyroid quit working at 18 - over 4 months I gained 100 pounds). Since that date more than half my life ago, I have been the exact same 220lb +/- 5lb depending on time of day. Through caloric deficits, through hiking and jogging (run many 5ks, and just recently hiked 125mi through the mountains). I'm fit, I eat well, but I'm BMI of 34, and my weight never fluctuates. My wife has wanted me to get on ozempic, but I'm actually scare of side effects, and the cost is atrocious in the US.

Insulin is not a "shortcut." It's a genuine product of the human body. Some people just don't produce enough in response to other metabolic changes.

monero-xmr 2y ago

Perhaps a better phrasing would be, "There is no free lunch." If you prefer to take Ozempic rather than monitoring caloric intake and exercising, then there are consequences. But if the consequences are worth it, is up to the individual.

lnsru 2y ago
I am the guy with an appointment with Ozempic prescribing doctor. I will seriously think about it twice. “Normal” starving does not have any very rare and very bad consequences. It’s just very very difficult.
beardedwizard 2y ago
Someone reading this might assume its zero sum to you - as if people on Ozempic have not already been exercising and monitoring caloric intake without the associated weight loss/health results they desire - and have only chosen it because they don't want to try something else. I'm sure you aren't trying to come across as fat shaming, but the reality is of course not zero sum. Diet and exercise doesn't magically work for the entire population. Diet and exercise definitely worked for me but im not willing to be a sample size of 1 in the face of so many others with legitimate stories.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  Diet alone is 100% guaranteed to cause you to lose weight. It really is as easy as counting calories. It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to gain, or maintain weight, if you cut caloric intake sufficiently.
  - copperx 2y ago
    You are not wrong. Starving yourself works, obviously. What doesn't work is maintaining people in a state of starvation. It becomes extremely hard if there are other tasks stealing focus (for example, work), or if you have a high basal metabolic rate, or if you have diabetes, etc.
  - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    Yes, and abstaining from alcohol is guaranteed to stop alcoholism! It is a scientific fact. It is physically impossible to be an alcoholic if you cut alcohol intake sufficiently. It's so simple, really. (See the problem here?)
    - kbelder 2y ago
      I see what you're claiming is the problem.
  - beardedwizard 2y ago
    This is an intellectually dishonest statement.
  - intermerda 2y ago
    Eating is 100% guaranteed to cure starvation. Not drinking is 100% guaranteed to cure alcoholism. Buying a house is 100% guaranteed to solve homelessness. It's really that easy.
  - averageRoyalty 2y ago
    Agreed. And if you want to stop smoking or gambling it really is as easy as not doing it. Except reality is it's hard. Addiction is a real issue, people have underlying compulsions and habits as difficult to break as with physical pressure. For some people monitoring caloric intake isn't the option it is for others.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    No one here is stating that physics stops working for fat people. Obviously, your body needs an energy source to function and when you deprive it of that energy source it will go to your energy reserves. There might be some woefully ignorant people that claim otherwise elsewhere, but that's not the position of the person you are referring to. But you're saying "it is as easy as doing activity x" without concern for the difficulty of that activity. There are a wide variety of reasons some people might get fat, but once you are fat, it is far more difficult to get not-fat than it was to get there in the first place. There are a wide variety of feedback loops within the body, including epigenetic ones, that make it much harder to lose weight and keep it off. Once upon a time, it was trivial for me to not eat garbage food, or too much of any sort of food. I had more trouble trying to eat enough to be in a large enough caloric surplus to get enough protein in and stay in a large enough caloric surplus to build muscle. I never had "food noise" or anything of that nature. Then life happened, my circumstances changed, and I had less time to worry about food. I spent more time going out with co-workers and friends eating and drinking. Other nights, I was too busy to cook, and ordered in more. My weight went up, and before I really realized it, I had put on significant weight. And I realized that something I had found trivial before, something that had taken zero willpower, that I had never struggled with... was something that was incredibly mentally taxing. Could I count calories and lose weight? Of course. Could I add exercise back in to my routine? Yep. But it was difficult in a way that I never had understood back when I was fit, in a way that I never would have believed could happen to me. And as soon as I got busy again, or had other things occur in my life that took priority, the mental effort to keep "just counting calories" and push down my food cravings and hunger no longer seemed worth it. I could exert a huge portion of my willpower on this, struggle with it, remove my capacity to spend more time having care and empathy for others, forcefully deprioritize other things in life... or I could use a GLP-1. I know which path made sense for me, and it's been a hugely beneficial thing in my life.
samatman 2y ago
It's true, it isn't a free lunch. You, or your insurer, has to pay for it. It needs to be injected. It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. And so on.
- trogdor 2y ago
  >It won't work as well if you insist on eating a pint of ice cream three times a day. Yeah, good luck with that. GLP-1 agonists reduce your desire for, and for many people, your ability to consume things like “a pint of ice cream three times a day.” That’s kinda the point.
  - samatman 2y ago
    The sarcasm in my reply did not come across it would seem. "No free lunch" does not in any sense imply that there are no positive-sum decisions to be made.
    - trogdor 2y ago
      Whoosh. I’m slow.

Barrin92 2y ago

Civilization is built on long term sustainable practice, shortcuts in response to the lack of such practices is how civilizations burn down. Obviously T1 diabetics need to take medication because there's not much else they can do whatever side effects that has, but the topic is obviously relevant and posted here because these drugs are currently being used/abused for weight loss. Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) that is what a healthy human civilization would do, instead of opting for drugs with utterly unknown side effects, potentially really bad ones, like in this case.

KittenInABox 2y ago
> Given that sustainable, side effect free ways to lose weight exist (with many additional benefits) Just because it exists doesn't mean it's statistically applicable to a population of people. I've yet to see real evidence that on a population scale, sustainable and side effect free ways to lose weight exists at a statistically significant level. If you're 100+ lbs overweight and you lose it all without any medical intervention for over 5 yrs you're basically a statistical freak.
- renewedrebecca 2y ago
  Not to mention that the human body is completely opposed to losing weight, and will do anything it can to convince you that what you really need to do is to gain it back.
  - jermaustin1 2y ago
    This was something that astounded me about my weight. It is static. Has been static since I gained it all (when my thyroid quit working at 18 - over 4 months I gained 100 pounds). Since that date more than half my life ago, I have been the exact same 220lb +/- 5lb depending on time of day. Through caloric deficits, through hiking and jogging (run many 5ks, and just recently hiked 125mi through the mountains). I'm fit, I eat well, but I'm BMI of 34, and my weight never fluctuates. My wife has wanted me to get on ozempic, but I'm actually scare of side effects, and the cost is atrocious in the US.