Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, May-25-24, 04:05
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,976
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Weight-loss jabs shouldn’t be quick-fix solution for governments, says expert

Quote:
Weight-loss jabs shouldn’t be quick-fix solution for governments, says expert

Obesity prevention is cheaper long-term option, says Cambridge professor, with focus on dietary advice and exercise plans


Skinny jabs risk being used as a cop-out by governments to avoid making hard policy choices to prevent obesity, a leading expert has warned.

Prof Giles Yeo, a geneticist at the University of Cambridge and expert on obesity and the brain control of food intake, said drugs such as semaglutide – the active ingredient in the weight-loss jab Wegovy – were remarkable and worked for a majority of people.

Indeed, Wegovy – which is available on the NHS – can help people to lose more than 10% of their body weight, with drugs such as tirzepatide even more effective. And the drugs are becoming ever more potent in their ability to help people lose weight.

“The effect sizes [in terms of weight loss] of the stuff coming down the line are incredible,” Yeo said, adding that products were in development that would require one injection a month, rather than weekly jabs.

But, Yeo stressed, such medications, known as GLP1 receptor agonists, were designed to treat obesity and its related illnesses, not prevent it.

“Prevention of obesity will require – will require – government policy changes, the hard miles, and I do fear, and this is a true fear, that actually not only our government, but many governments and policymakers, may very well use [these drugs] as a cop-out not to make the hard policy decisions. And that is a real issue,” he said.

Yeo added that prevention remained better than cure.

“The more time you spend in a state of obesity, the worse your health,” he said. “So preventing it means that you’re going to end up being healthier.”

A child eating a meal at a table but also playing on a smartphone
No screens at meals and insect food: four fresh findings about obesity
Read more
Prevention was also the cheaper approach, he said, noting it avoided costs associated with obesity-related conditions, and those associated with treating obesity.

“The problem is these are long-term costs,” said Yeo, noting that meant they would span many governments. As a result, he said, a long-term plan was needed.

Yeo said among the public health measures that had to be taken by policymakers was to subsidise healthy foods to make them cheaper, so that they became the default choice even when money was limited.

He also stressed the need to crack down on the placement of unhealthy foods in shops.

“I’m not a food nazi, but I do think that if you want to eat something – chocolate, pudding, or whatever – that you walk to the aisle that says chocolate, and you walk to the aisle that says lasagne, you walk to the aisle that says ice-cream, and buy it,” he said, noting that enabled personal agency without people being sold items they were not intending to buy.

Yeo added that, while regulations were also needed on advertising of junk foods, plans for a 9pm watershed were “a load of bollocks now”, given that many people streamed shows as and when they wanted.

He also stressed it was important that action on advertising was non-judgmental, meaning it applied to all foods that met set nutritional criteria – such as having high levels of fat, salt and sugar – regardless of whether the food in question came from a fast-food outlet or fancy restaurant.

Yeo added that while drugs such as semaglutide were effective when it came to treating obesity – and were being trialled in other areas of health, from dementia to addiction – they had their limits.

“They make you feel fuller: you feel fuller, you eat less,” he said. “But what they don’t do is improve your diet.”

That, Yeo said, was a concern if they are used by people who consumed a poor diet.

“All this drug will do is reduce the amount of the poor diet you’re eating, so therefore you will lose weight, but it won’t improve your diet,” he said. “You will be healthier because you’ve lost weight, but nowhere near as healthy as you could have been if you were eating a healthy diet in addition to losing weight.”

Yeo cautioned there could even be unintended effects, given an unhealthy diet might be low in protein and micronutrients, meaning smaller portions might not reach recommended levels. In that case, people who eat less as a result of the jabs could face another problem. “There is a potential danger, if your diet was poor to begin with, that you find yourself in malnutrition,” he said.

Even those who ate healthily while using the drugs could experience unexpected consequences, he said, noting that like quick weight-loss diets, skinny jabs could lead to the loss of muscle mass.

“If you don’t, on top of improving your diet with protein etc, exercise, then you end up losing fat and muscle mass at a rate of 50:50 – and no one signed up to lose muscle mass,” he said.

What’s more, Yeo noted, the drugs worked just as well for someone who was obese as someone who was underweight, while they also altered blood glucose levels and could have side-effects. As a result, Yeo said, monitoring of their use by medical professionals was crucial.

“On top of the fact that [people using the drugs] probably need really robust dietary advice and some kind of exercise plan,” he said.

Ultimately, said Yeo, while such drugs should be embraced as a way to treat obesity, prevention remained crucial.

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that, actually, we still need to improve the environment,” he said.


https://www.theguardian.com/society...nts-says-expert
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, May-25-24, 10:27
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,337
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Governments cannot afford skinny-jabs for everyone for life, so they will limit them to above certain thresholds. One study I saw said that 42% of Ozempic weight lost was lean body mass, whereas low carb with intermittent fasting resulted in 24% of weight lost was LBM (which includes water and muscle not needed with less weight to haul around), and other diets falling in between. I predict skinny jabs will just promote yo-yo dieting with bigger swings in weight as lost LBM weight is replaced by higher fat gains at every other yo.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, May-26-24, 10:30
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
Governments cannot afford skinny-jabs for everyone for life, so they will limit them to above certain thresholds.


Oh definitely. In the US, it's the insurance companies that decide whether or not you can even qualify for these drugs. Not only do you need to meet certain BMI and health thresholds, if you don't show the required amount of improvement (losing enough weight, improving health markers), they will stop paying for them.

Quote:
One study I saw said that 42% of Ozempic weight lost was lean body mass, whereas low carb with intermittent fasting resulted in 24% of weight lost was LBM (which includes water and muscle not needed with less weight to haul around), and other diets falling in between. I predict skinny jabs will just promote yo-yo dieting with bigger swings in weight as lost LBM weight is replaced by higher fat gains at every other yo.


Based on what I've seen so far, I strongly suspect you're right.

Some of the latest data (propaganda?) claims that GLP-1 drug users are able to keep the weight off for 4 years after they discontinue the use of the drugs. That has to be a complete anomaly, or else they were among the few who were able to somehow truly change their eating habits while on the drugs - which doesn't seem to happen in most cases. All they do is just like the article says:

Quote:
“They make you feel fuller: you feel fuller, you eat less,” he said. “But what they don’t do is improve your diet.”

That, Yeo said, was a concern if they are used by people who consumed a poor diet. “All this drug will do is reduce the amount of the poor diet you’re eating, so therefore you will lose weight, but it won’t improve your diet,” he said. “You will be healthier because you’ve lost weight, but nowhere near as healthy as you could have been if you were eating a healthy diet in addition to losing weight.”

Yeo cautioned there could even be unintended effects, given an unhealthy diet might be low in protein and micronutrients, meaning smaller portions might not reach recommended levels. In that case, people who eat less as a result of the jabs could face another problem. “There is a potential danger, if your diet was poor to begin with, that you find yourself in malnutrition,” he said.


Chances are that they gained so much weight to begin with due to eating a poor diet, which means they're very likely already somewhat malnourished. Cut the poor diet in half (which is about what the drugs do), and you're getting half of what was already a poor diet.

For many on GLP-1 drugs, they can't stomach meats at all - so protein consumption is cut significantly. Fats are minimal when on GLP-1 drugs because they take so long to digest that they result in a lot of regurgitation. Which means they're reduced to eating mostly carbs - and the easiest carbs to digest are crackers, rice, potato... well, you get the idea: even worse nutrition than before they started the drugs.

If that's the case then when you finish losing your weight, you're malnourished - something that should be quite obvious when considering how much muscle mass is lost on GLP-1 drugs. (By the way, the heart is a muscle, and muscle mass lost when on such an extreme diet does not discriminate between essential heart muscle, and leg muscle that's no longer required to support a larger body mass)

So when they go off the drugs, nothing about their ingrained eating habits has changed: they've been living on mostly carbs, so nothing has been done to help turn off the craving for carbs. Combined with the return to eating their normal amounts of food, weight gain is inevitable, and at an alarming rate - as you said, yo-yo. Drug induced yo-yo-ing.



____________

But going back to the original point of the article that people need to eat healthier diets rather than rely on weight loss drugs to get them out of obesity - they've been pushing what's supposed to be a healthy diet for more than 40 years now: low fat/high fiber. And all that has done is to drive the obesity number up higher and higher.

The question is WHY?

Could be that the body/brain connection knows you can't absorb nutrients without sufficient fats in your diet, so that makes you crave foods that have fats and proteins of any kind: even fast food becomes more attractive, because it is a source of fat and protein

Your body/brain connection says "Yes! Protein AND fat - we NEED this", despite so much of the fat being from seed oils, and the massive amount of carbs involved in a steady fast food diet.

Even if you don't get into fast food - there's carby pseudo-foods everywhere. Even with home cooking - cookies, cakes, pies, and breads.

"Health" food sections in stores full of bars and snacks that supposedly provide a lot of fiber, but are mostly just carriers for sugar and still more starches. Low fat everything: still more starches.

Starches and sugars as far as the eye can see, even when they're labeled as healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, May-27-24, 14:20
naenae52 naenae52 is offline
New Member
Posts: 17
 
Plan: Jenny Craig
Stats: 173/165/120 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress:
Default

In this regard, the article provides a good reminder of why weight-loss jabs represent such an ominous phrase for the future of obesity control. Of course, but it is also worrying that they may come to be seen as a short-cut by governments already looking for an easy way out instead of effective preventative action. Prof. Giles Yeo is correct to stress the need for dietary advice and exercise plans, which tackle not the symptomatic conditions of obesity but its root causes. Although such drugs may offer short-term benefits, they do not tackle the root cause of obesity lifestyle factors. While we focus on proper education and similar strategies towards long-term prevention, too — we can get our priorities straight so that their outcomes are healthier habits to fight obesity with.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, May-31-24, 04:07
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,849
 
Plan: Carnivore & LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Full points to Calianna for pointing out how people got fat in the Fifties. Reminded me that there is a chubby person in the 1940 release "The Shop Around the Corner." Sold a candy box with music that will remind her that she shouldn't eat so much candy

But that was something everyone knew, in the Fifties with the birth of the bunless burger diet plate, which has been destroyed with all that profit on carbs.

Like tobacco, they knew the part that was addictive! That's why they added more addictive substances to their products.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, May-31-24, 04:11
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,849
 
Plan: Carnivore & LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Also it turns out movement is crucial for the lymphatic system, but hours of cardio suppresses it. People already inflamed were told to do ALL the inflammatory things, and autoimmune exploded, too.

All that inflammation and dysfunction makes us retain water and there's swelling everywhere, blocking the movement of everything our body does.

Crushing fatigue makes it difficult to do much, but walking is the best thing, especially for those carrying extra weight.

They told people to eat wrong and exercise wrong for decades. It really does explain why so many just went irresponsibly hedonistic.

The Fat Head fellow lost weight at McD's. He chose mindfully.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:02.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.