Click here to read the article in full

The problem with the drugs is that, unless you continue to take them the lost weight will quickly come back. The drugs do nothing to change a person's eating habits.

Imho, Ozempic and such will be a passing fad. The side effects will be revealed more widely . ( With a bit of sleuthing its already known that it deletes muscle mass as well as fat mass.)Ofcourse, those that dont care about muscle mass will continue to use it.

In case it's forgotten,high fat- high protein diets are far more protective of muscle. A high carb diet, low in calories, uses up muscle mass. DANDR discusses the three studies.

Not to mention that they are rather expensive drugs.

Of course I don't know how the costs of a lifetime of semaglutide drugs for appetite control compares to the cost of a lifetime of drugs and treatments for diabetes and other obesity related illnesses though. I'm not sure they've even compared the costs...

And as Arielle points out below, it will probably end up being a passing fad anyway, once they realize the potentially very devastating side effects of semaglutide...



... although to be honest, there are plenty of people who don't really care about side effects - they're perfectly fine with taking another drug to counteract the side effects, which is where the drug that mimics exercise could come into play.

Of course that drug has the side effect of heart enlargement, so they'll need another drug that specifically prevents the heart enlargement caused by the exercise mimicking drug.

The way that medication side effects so often lead to more and more medications with more and more side effects that need more medications to counteract those side effects - it all reminds me far too much of this old nursery rhyme:

(we'll just go with the next to last verse, because I'm sure you get the idea )

Getting back to the original topic of fast food/takeaway joints being killed off by weight loss drugs ....

Um, no. Maybe they'll need to make menu changes, such as smaller portions .. especially smaller buns/carbs or offer lettuce wraps instead of buns .. which they're already doing now. They'll just need to offer it more widely.

My hope is that this will kill the "super size" "monster size" trend. Truth is .. the protein portion has never changed .. 4 oz (a.k.a. quarter pound) beef patty or grilled chicken breast hasn't changed. It's the giNORmous bun (carbs!!) that's grown over the years. And the super-sized fries and other sides, such as onion rings. And OMG, the super-sized sugary drinks, takes both hands to raise it to your mouth!! .. although the sugar-free versions are now scientifically shown to have negative health effects.

Sigh

For folks taking the GLP1-agonist drugs such as Wegovy and Ozempic, the issue is appetite reduction, a.k.a. anorexia. They've grown up with Micky D, Harvey's or KFC. Basically comfort foods. The drug might make them feel nauseous all the time, so they're more likely to turn to their favourite comfort foods ... a.k.a. fast foods. Prepping fresh meat and peeling/chopping vegetables is not appealing. Especially if they have a busy lifestyle.

Anyway .. my thought is the fast food and takeaway outlets have nothing to worry about per se. They just need to change their menus, especially to offer smaller portions that emphasize protein and less cheap carbs (buns, croutons, chips and carby sides such as rice or potatoes), I think that will benefit everyone, not just folks taking weight loss drugs.

Nothing is killing off fast food except actual knowledge of what it does to people. And the reason they emphasize carbs is that it's cheap as dirt and endlessly maleable.

If grains were all mueslix/granola it would be different. Instead, it can be made into a myriad of things, from shape to texture, that hits the brain like a runaway train.

We have never been good at avoiding THAT. People still in the hunter-gatherer stage brew intoxicating beverages. With pre-fire techniques.

We can't eradicate that effect. We can stop the lies that call it "harmless." When people are more aware of harm, they do shift their behavior.

Remember when Atkins became so popular the cereal and donut people were worried? They attacked Atkins, but then co-opted keto... and made it not-keto with their additives and green drinks and I don't know how many MLM products.

Get them out of science. Or this won't stop. Everything just becomes PRODUCT to them, with no nutritional value.

Like the movies, lately. Fortunately, those are all flopping. If junk food is as bad as smoking, we can say so and do something.

When 80% of the population is dealing with some form of overweight which affects their health, it is an emergency. Under pressure, they will "improve" what they sell.

Adding iodine to salt did wonders, once. Still does, or thyroid problems would be even worse. This is why we had salmon patties once a week in my house, growing up. So we'd all get our idodine!

Those habits have fallen by the wayside. There were good reasons for the salmon, and the added saltines were so we would eat it.

It's not just that they can't eat as much though - there's very specific things that the drug discourages them from eating because it takes so long to digest and leaves them feeling sick to their stomach - primarily fatty meat. The ones I've seen on it seem to be able to handle starch just fine. They can also handle beans, vegetables and fruit. The starch component is probably the easiest thing to eat though because it's still digested faster than the other foods. (But still much more slowly than without the drug - and they can only eat about half as much as usual)

The most difficult thing for them to digest is fat, followed by meat, especially fatty meat, which means that 1/4 lb burger patty is not going to sit well in their stomach.

As far as I can tell, the main thing these drugs do is to enforce a low fat, low protein diet, and cuts calories even more by prolonging the amount of time it takes to digest even the most easily digestible foods (starch).

How that will translate into the fast food world, I really don't know, unless they decide to offer even smaller meat portions, with lower fat turkey/chicken burgers instead of hamburgers.

More likely through would be through the magic of fast food science, come up with easily digestible burgers that taste like beef, with the "mouth feel" of full fat burgers (while being low fat), offering the same visual volume of the Quarter pounder or Big Mac, but is lower fat, lower calorie, and digests more easily.

They could continue to offer starches, but smaller portions of them - although that probably won't go over well now that everyone is used to getting huge portions (even if the diet drug users can't really eat that much).

So that problem would go back to the fast food mad scientists - maybe they can come up with some kind of new fry-making process that provides as much volume as the current fries, while reducing the actual fat content so they're easy enough to digest, and providing the same taste and similar texture as the current fries... I dunno, maybe some kind of air-puffed potato inside with a low-fat crispy outside.

Same sort of thing with the burger buns. I don't see them back-tracking on portion size on any of this. They can already offer super-sized diet sodas, so that's not likely to change.

I don't see it ending in real food that's not being mucked about with to keep the diet drug users eating it. They'll do whatever is necessary in order to keep profits up.

I hardly ever watch tv because...well, lots of reasons. However, I stepped into the room during a football game yesterday, and caught some food commercials.

YIKES!! One outfit is now offering its humongous double cheeseburger with a PRETZEL bun. How big does your mouth have to be--let alone your stomach--to accommodate that massive glob??

I backed out of the tv room real fast. By the way, my football-watching husband watches the games with the sound off. The makes the game and the commercials easier to take.

NOTHING will kill the fast food business. If heart attack, diabetes, and inability to tie their shoes won't motivate people, what will?

The ones having heart attacks are being warned to stop eating so much fatty meat. Starch is fine.

Not even the diabetics are really being warned off of starches - just told to increase their insulin to cover it. Oh and to avoid fatty meat.

And they're all being told to cut back on sodium.

The fast food places have been pretty much forced to reveal the nutrition stats of their products, but McD's large fries still have only 23 g fat, whereas the Big Mac has 34 g fat, and the double quarter pounder with cheese has
42 g fat. The large fries have only 400 mg sodium - the Big Mac has 1050 mg sodium, and the double quarter pounder with cheese has 1360 mg sodium - Once again, the meat looks like the worst offender when it comes to their poor health. Might as well load up on those fries, maybe choose a smaller burger with less fat and sodium.

On this website, WE know that the fat and sodium are not really the problem, and that the meat itself is definitely not the problem.

But every time THEY go to the doctor, it's reinforced to them that eating too much fat is the problem, along with the sodium content.

German physicist Max Planck: "science advances one funeral at a time." Planck noted “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

My aunt, facing a hip replacement, was told to "get her protein" by drinking Ensure.

https://ensure.com/nutrition-products/drink-ingredients

At least I've made enough progress that she found a better alternative. Heaven forbid someone EATS MEAT. Her reflexes are all low fat and dry chicken breast. And she's an active person and always has been.

And that's how they will handle the scientific findings. More protein bars for everyone!

Because I live in the US south…I’d say unlikely! Sonic proudly announced yesterday….

I didn’t even bother to check the nutrition, the photos told me enough.

Silly me, I was actually expecting to click on that link and see a list of ingredients in the Ensure - you know like the list that's required to be on the side of the container. Oh and a Nutrition stats panel.

But no... a glitzy looking web page that tries to make it sound like the best thing ever. Because heaven forbid you'd want to eat actual FOOD when you can eat a sugary chemical concoction.

Sigh.

*Goes off to google for a list of the ingredients and a side panel to see what's actually in it and how much "nutrition" it actually provides.*

... Now why am I not the least bit surprised to find out that all of them have a ton of carbs in them, and very little protein?

Actually, I think if there is a weight-loss drug that really worked, and had minor side effects, it would help the fast-food industry.

I can hear it now, "I can eat all the junk I want, pop a pill, and stay slim and trim."

Long term health doesn't seem to be a priority to most folks. Instead, the top five are
(1) taste
(2) taste
(3) taste
(4) taste
(5) does it taste good and not get me fat

IMO we should be doing the opposite
(1) health
(2) taste

Without good health, nothing else matters. You could win powerball and if you have cancer, powerball won't save you.

Bob

I certainly agree that no amount of money will save you from bad health.

But in reality, fast food doesn't even taste that good. All it really has is the addictive trifecta of fat, salt, and carbs.



A decade or two ago, I was so tired of trying to figure out what to cook for dinner every night that I signed up for a weekly recipe/menu email service.

It provided a detailed grocery list, 6 main dish recipes (the assumption was that you'd probably eat out once a week, or have a family favorite on the 7th day), simple instructions (most main dishes took 30-45 minutes or less to prepare), and suggested side dishes.

I signed up for the LC version, due to the fact that the woman who created the menu wanted to make sure there were no obscure and difficult to obtain specialty ingredients in the recipes (she wanted to keep her customers instead of frustrating them). So they did actually include small bits of starches (usually a Tbsp or two of flour, or a tsp or two of cornstarch, or 1/4 cup of bread crumbs to make the full 4 servings). The recipes still came in at 10 net carbs or less per serving. (Being familiar with LC for quite some time prior to using that menu service, I was able to switch to some LC alternatives for the few occasional starchy ingredients in the recipes)

While the recipes weren't all winners, it was amazing what a few real and simple (for the most part) ingredients could produce. I was often cooking meals that would have been worthy of a very nice sit down restaurant - Far better tasting dinners than we could have gotten from any fast food place, and less expensive dinner for 4. Even when the recipe called for a fairly expensive cut of meat it was still less expensive than going to a fast food place. I often switched to a less expensive cut of meat too, and they still turned out really good.