I had forgotten while I was typing the last post - you need to reset the tools to "verbatim" every single time you do a search, because it automatically switches back to all results for every search (even if you're backspacing on a previous search and typing in a new topic), and of course advertisers (and articles about the products they advertise) are going to be favored in the search results...

Because google is "free", so we all need to remember this:



It seems they have 30 pages of ozempic selling customers' ads to show you before they'll let you see what you really wanted to find related to weight loss.

(And even resetting the tools to verbatim for every single search related to diet or weight loss, you'll still get ozempic results along with other weight loss drug results, just not as many.)

I hadn't read any of the stories about this, but I have to wonder if they said she had hypoglycemia as an ongoing condition/had been diagnosed with hypoglycemia.

Or did they say that her death was due to hypoglycemia - as in an overdose of insulin that caused her to go into a hypoglycemic state, because that would make sense if there was too much insulin in her system (as long as she was not insulin resistant - and if you're insulin resistant, chances are you're going to be quite overweight to begin with). Was she overweight? Or was she socialite/Hollywood thin?

Otherwise I'm not even seeing why anyone would have insulin around for weight loss, because it certainly doesn't cause a person to lose weight - actually does the exact opposite, and they would have known that even back then.

(Obviously I'm not getting involved in the whole who-done-it question, just trying to figure out why they would say she was hypoglycemic, and was known to inject herself with insulin. If your blood sugar is already too low, you don't use a drug that will make it even lower unless you have some kind of death wish)

I found a witness. Likely the closest I can get to an answer.

Mind you, I'm not saying it makes sense, at all.

Witness: Sunny used insulin, Valium




Geez, who did the AP hire back then, kindergarteners?



Which was more than I expected to find!

Okay folks, the Gooogle search tips have been helpful but please can we get back on topic about Ozempic (and other semaglutide formulations) as relevant to low-carbing?

Thanks for understanding

Doreen

No worries! I was attempting to add to the list of "more foolish ways people try to lose weight while eating junk food" which is more of a footnote, except for the psychology.

Fact is, simply from reading Internet comments, there's waaaay more digestive paralysis going on than is being publicly acknowledged. It looks like hormone resistance.

The nausea and other digestive side effects is because it is paralyzing the digestive system. The drug is working as designed. And why people need increasing doses for it to keep working.

Until the whole system freezes up and has to be coaxed back into working again. How well? We don't know that either. But they are still talking about "lifetime" drug prescriptions.

It's not that different from the way they are told to "inject insulin to cover" whatever carb load they are dealing with.

I can only conclude that these patients are no longer responding to insulin like they should. And the drug makers have to fiddle with another system to get the result they want.

"Hey look, we can paralyze their digestive system with semaglutide and the insulin resistance goes away." While they are creating GLP-1 receptors who are -- in self defense -- turning themselves off.

Which is why I call it "drug-conveyed bariatric surgery." For the effect on the patient. Because they have not been tasked with changing the patient's diet.

They have been told to change the patient, instead.

Kudos to bariatric surgeons, who aren't endangering as many patients from absorption problems. Now the drug makers have created similarly dangerous conditions. To create the same circumstances by other means.

It's apparently not really all that new of a tactic - to change the effect of the food on the patient, rather than changing the patient's diet.

This article referencing a few moments on Oprah's special is from the Atlantic.



https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...natives/677884/

Right after the part quoted above, it said that nothing more was mentioned on Oprah's special about the drugs that have been around for 10-20 years - because of course it was a show about the GLP-1 drugs, not older (cheaper) drugs that worked for weight loss.

I was able to read a good bit more on my phone earlier. The article went on to name those drugs and each one's effectiveness rate, the best of which was about half of ozempic's 20% of body weight loss results. Now it's thrown up a paywall on desktop as well as on my phone, so I can't get to the part in the article where it named those drugs and their specific effectiveness rates.


But the gist of it was that those drugs apparently have been around for quite a while and they're not totally ineffective. I didn't read far enough to determine if they worked similarly to the GLP-1 drugs, or if they listed side effects, and what happens when the patient stops taking the drugs before bookmarking it and ending up locked out. However, I find it hard to imagine that Oprah didn't know about those drugs - the queen of public diets not knowing about every weight loss option available? Well, maybe they were mostly available during the height of her reign on WW, so she was turning a blind eye to any other way to lose weight. Or maybe she tried them and since the weight loss wasn't dramatic enough for her, she gave up on them.

******

But getting back to the topic of changing the effect of the food on the patient rather than changing the patient's diet - they've tried to change the patient's diet for decades. They've been using the wrong tactics of course - low fat, low calorie, which naturally results in feeling like you're starving so you end up eating more and more carbs, making those diets unsustainable.

Even the few Dr's who would dare go against the grain (literally) and tell their patients to go LC - they're not getting a great result, because so many people are so addicted to carbs that they can't give them up, at least not long term, and not when faced with a weekly or monthly barrage of carbage at special events and holiday related celebrations, which puts them right back at square one trying to go back to LC again.

But then people went on and off diets long before the low fat craze started. The "diet plate" was a staple at many restaurants, with a hamburger patty and cottage cheese, arranged with lettuce, tomato slices and maybe a dill pickle or a peach half - a decidedly LC meal compared to a typical 3 slices of bread club sandwich with fries. But as soon as they lost the weight, they'd go back to their regular diet, and start regaining the weight - so there was no long term diet change.

So if you can't get people in general to change their diet permanently, what's left to try?

It looks like about the only option left was to change the way the body reacts to food, and how much food a person is even capable of consuming, even if it does result in a bunch of side effects (some of which can land a person in the hospital for days or weeks) - at least they'll have lost weight.

Somewhere it's been mentioned that the GLP-1 drugs have the same effect as WLS without the surgery - and that's essentially what it does.

My idea of low carb jail -- a resort with only low carb food and organic wine -- would work without the side effects.

But insurance would never pay for it. Though it would be cheaper.