How about you actually do some research before you make claims like that? It’s a bit worse in the US, but obesity is a global problem. Any country with an obese population of 20% or more of the total population I would consider as having a serious national obesity problem. Several first world countries are at above 30%. A couple are above 40%, including the US. Even half of that is still in “crisis” territory.
Again, there are no emotions running high here, except maybe from you and that one person who got mad for some reason. From the beginning you misunderstood the point, didn’t listen to anyone in the conversation, and failed to admit you were wrong.
Nobody was ever arguing with you claiming that thermodynamics didn’t apply. Every single person here understands that thermodynamics applies. You are wrong because you came in arguing something that nobody else was talking about. We were talking about apples and you came in here, emotions flaring, yelling about oranges.
I “got it” from the beginning. This quite literally is all about weight loss. It’s not about physics or thermodynamics. It’s about weight loss in the real world, and I believe even after reading this comment you will still refuse to acknowledge this. I am going to stop feeding what I realize now is an obvious troll. I am bad at recognizing trolls, I need to get better at that so this is partially my fault for continuing to enable you.
This whole conversation is about obesity. The article is about losing weight with ozempic, which is to treat obesity. My top comment was about obesity. Everyone else is talking about obesity. The reason you’re getting pushback from everyone is because you’re purposely ignoring the topic at hand and arguing pedantics about energy conservation when nobody else is talking about that, or cares about that. You’re preaching to the choir. Everyone knows you can lose weight by eating fewer calories than you burn. It’s common sense. But that’s not what the whole discussion is about.
I’m also not sure what you’re referring to about getting emotional, except for maybe that one person who told someone to STFU.
We agree that yes, the laws of thermodynamics exist and you are correct. Now how about you come and discuss what everyone else is discussing and contribute something to the thread? If you don’t feel like discussing obesity and real-world weight loss tactics, that’s perfectly fine. I’m sure there are plenty of other posts and threads talking about thermodynamics that you can join.
Jellyfin watch status and sonarr. I do use mal but really only for looking up the list of shows airing this season and adding some that I want to watch to sonarr.
It’s all in one place and directly relates to the availability on my server. Just a couple clicks and it’s tracked and downloaded.
Everyone knows eating less is the answer. We have for decades. And yet, the world is obese. You’re not revealing anything new or revolutionary. Society has accepted this as truth long ago, and now we are tackling a different problem - how to keep as many people as possible realistically able to lose weight and reduce the risk of heart disease. Having the willpower to eat less isn’t the answer for 30+% of the population.
Sticking your head in the sand and saying “I don’t care how you do it, just eat less” is at best tone deaf and pointless and at worst actively harmful. The problem we’re facing now isn’t that we don’t know how a human can lose weight. It’s how individuals in our current society with external factors and challenges can reliably lose weight, applied at scale.
We do not (at least with an acceptable sample size), which does make it a bit of a gamble. However, for some people with severe obesity I’d wager the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, with all of the severe issues that can happen because of that level of obesity. If I had to deal with the drastically increased risk of heart disease et al or a yet to be discovered drawback, I’d go with the yet to be discovered one personally.
It’s one example, but it’s not extreme. Many first-world countries have an obesity rate above 20%, many above 30%, and some have a rate above 40%, like the US, Egypt, and others. When 30% of a country are affected by the same health issue, it’s a systemic issue. And biology plays a huge role in that. Most people know how bad obesity is for them. They’re not making the conscious decision to become obese. They are making millions of micro-decisions guided by their mood, hunger, food availability, and willpower to consume calorie-dense foods. Much of that is their biological urge to consume overpowering their better judgement in the moment, made possible by factors outside of their direct control like availability of unhealthy foods.
But we’re getting away from the point of this whole comment chain. The point is that dieting doesn’t work. Despite official recommendations by nearly all first world countries’ governments, and most real doctors out there, 30% of many countries (and 40% of my country) are obese. The point of this comment chain is that that number exists because dieting isn’t working for the modern world. And semaglutide is one solution that is saving lives.
Yes, there are definitely non-biological factors here. But humans evolved to conserve energy. When faced with hyper-palitable, super calorie dense foods, humans have an overwhelming urge to consume, and keep consuming. And once you’re past a certain point, it becomes increasingly MORE difficult to cut down on eating, all because of biological functions. Of course the initial variable that allows for this is the availability of those foods, but the fact that humans can’t resist them is purely biological. That’s just one of many reasons.
Others relate to psychology, which is kind of on the edge of biology.
The point is that through no fault of the victims of obesity much of the time, they are trapped in a cycle. And semaglutide is a new way to escape from that cycle. If dieting worked, obesity would not be at the rates it’s at today.
One solution is to “stop making those foods available” of course. It’s a systemic issue, breaking the chain at any point would help. But if you’re some lower middle class average person, your BMI is crazy high, and you have a choice between “joining a political movement to pass laws against harmful foods”, “spend time, energy, and stress you don’t have to spare following a diet that you aren’t strong enough to follow” and “taking an injection once a week”, the choice is clear.
Right, you are correct. Now how do we get people to actually follow diets and eat less? How do we save the billions of people who are overweight? Because clearly telling them “stop being so lazy and eat less or exercise more” hasn’t been working for decades.
Right, you’re almost there. How do we get people to reliably eat less?
“if you can’t find one diet that has actual scientific macking, please stfu about subjects you know next to nothing about and have no evidence for”.
While a bit rude, this point by the other commenter is the one where there’s a disconnect between us.
Whether or not a diet works does not just come down to the biological mechanics of if sticking to it means you’ll lose weight. Humans’ ability to stick to it is still part of the diet. If humans can’t, collectively, stick to a diet long enough to make it work, the diet doesn’t work. If humans could turn off parts of their brain and follow diets like robots, that would be fine. But the point of contention here is if diets work. And largely, they do not, for reasons unrelated to calories in/out.
Because of biology and psychology, humans cannot reliably follow diets, at least not a significant portion of the population. (Though there are non-biological factors too.)
The other commenter is not arguing that thermodynamics do not apply. They are arguing that diets themselves do not work because people cannot stick to them. This does not mean that “diets work, you just need to stick to them”. If people cannot stick to them, the diets don’t work.
I think they are trying to say that you can technically lose weight without changing how you eat by spending more calories. Which… is technically true. But obviously doesn’t relate to the point I was making, and I feel like they’re purposefully avoiding talking about the fact that the biological mechanics of how one loses weight have nothing to do with the general population’s inability to lose weight with willpower alone.
They’re trying to spring some sort of “gotcha” on the fact that I didn’t over-explain my terminology in a throwaway example, ignoring the rest of my comment and the meaning behind it.
Of course “eating less than you burn” works. That’s not the point here. The point is that despite knowing this as fact, the world continues to become more obese. “Oh it’s because people are lazy” Sure, then how do we treat that? How do we save lives from this global epidemic of obesity? Ignoring the fact that humans naturally can have a difficult time losing weight even while knowing the right things to do isn’t going to solve the problem.
The mechanics of how weight loss works mean nothing when you don’t have the time, ability, or mental stability to enact the changes required. You can’t just blame individual people for this. It’s a large portion of the entire world that is experiencing this issue. When it’s one person with a problem, it could be their fault. When it’s billions of people, maybe consider acknowledging that it’s a systemic issue that cannot be solved with willpower alone.
Obviously it does. “Eating healthy” in this case means eating fewer calories than you burn. But don’t just pick at one small part of one example and not acknowledge the rest of my comment. What do you suppose we do about the obesity epidemic? How do we save as many lives as possible? Many things have been tried, and many have failed. Including telling people to lose weight and how to do it themselves.
And what do you suppose we do about that? It has become a global epidemic. Just “get good” and start eating healthy? Clearly that does actually work, and yet obesity is more of a problem now than it has ever been.
Dieting is effective in a vacuum. Much of the time dieting isn’t effective because people are too busy, uninformed, too stressed, working 2 jobs, have mental disorders, don’t live near accessible sources of healthy food, have incredibly low willpower, are being lied to by food companies, lied to by their governments health systems, coerced into an unhealthy but profitable lifestyle, or all of the above.
Sure you could say “well just fix all of that and you’d be healthy” and you’d be right. But we all know that’s not going to happen, especially en masse.
Semaglutide helps people in those situations avoid the consequences of obesity. Sure it may have its own downsides. But it’s the easiest of many solutions, often the only one that will feasibly work for someone.
Not everyone can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and get healthy without help. If they could, the world wouldn’t be so obese on average. You have to acknowledge this is a mostly global issue and traditional solutions would have fixed it by now if they always worked.
Dieting is effective in a vacuum. Much of the time dieting isn’t effective because people are too busy, uninformed, too stressed, working 2 jobs, have mental disorders, don’t live near accessible sources of healthy food, have incredibly low willpower, are being lied to by food companies, lied to by their governments health systems, coerced into an unhealthy but profitable lifestyle, or all of the above.
Sure you could say “well just fix all of that and you’d be healthy” and you’d be right. But we all know that’s not going to happen, especially en masse.
Semaglutide helps people in those situations avoid the consequences of obesity. Sure it may have its own downsides. But it’s the easiest of many solutions, often the only one that will feasibly work for someone.
Not everyone can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and get healthy without help. If they could, the world wouldn’t be so obese on average. You have to acknowledge this is a mostly global issue and traditional solutions would have fixed it by now if they always worked.
The entire point of glp1 is to prescribe when dieting isn’t effective.
I think it’s well understood that people who produce glp1 correctly can still be obese and need weight loss and these drugs help with that. That’s the whole point of the drug. To provide more glp1 than is needed to lose weight easily.
Have you read any of the other comments here? People aren’t just “refusing” to change their diets. I’m not going to type my response again but see my comment here. Or maybe this comment by someone else. Or maybe this one. The point is that when 20+% of the population are afflicted with something, it’s not a problem of them “refusing” to fix it themselves. It’s a systemic issue.