1040
And all the antivaxxers I ever knew sure like recreational substances too. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 year ago (64 children)

Anyone around here have actual experience with ozempic? My dr has actuality suggested it for a potential heart issue, to help clear up the system i guess. But everyone online talks about it like it’s heroine

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 64 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's more along the lines of: Could you benefit from it because of some legit medical issues. Then go ahead.

    Do you want to take it recreationally to fit in your new dress for the wedding 3 weeks from now without any lifestyle changes? Don't take it.

    Ozempic is not some fun new "weight loss shot", it's a fucking necessity for people with diabetes. That includes Type I diabetes, which is due to genetics and not lifestyle choices.

    Recreational users have made ozempic scarce, raising the price to unsustainable levels for folx that rely on it to stay alive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    You're right except the last point - all drug shortages and issues are the result of doctors/public health and drug manufacturers. Never patients. It is a lie they tell us so we blame ourselves and each other.

    Patients can't write their own prescriptions. Patients can't magically procure a drug in their hands. They aren't stealing them from diabetics, they are being advertised to and buying the product.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 15 points 1 year ago

    My ex was on it for diabetes, and it caused gastroparesis in him and he ended up hospitalized for 12 days. His digestion has never been the same, and he's in a class action lawsuit against the makers of Ozempic because it's a side effect that they didn't disclose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (44 children)

    Before going on Ozempic, read up on current medical research (not Facebook or such shit). They discovered some not-so-good long term effects recently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (43 children)

    Like many medications, you are balancing the risks of continuing with an unmedicated health problem or any negative side effects of the medication.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It hospitalized my ex for 12 days. The side effects are real. He's in a class action suit against the company.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    That’s… Not a side effect.

    No, it is just the way this drug works. You take Ozempic, it supresses your hunger feeling, and you automatically change your diet as you are not as hungry anymore.

    Problem is that the depleted fat cells still exist, and a depleted fat cell releases signals that scream "I'm hungry! Feed me!", and the more they are depleted, the louder the call. While you take Ozempic, this is supressed, but as soon as you get off it, your body demands food to re-fill the depleted cells, and will not stopping before it has reached at least the former status quo.

    Just like the bounce back effect after a diet, only worse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (34 children)

    If you take ozempic for weight loss but choose to continue eating like shit then it isn’t the drug’s fault.

    That's not how it works. Ozempic simply opresses the hunger feeling, therefor helping you lose weight. Problem is that still existing, but empty/depleted fat cells basically scream "we are hungry", so as soon as you get off Ozempic, you basically can't stop eating until you regained at least the former state. That was - for me - the reason not to start on Ozempic, it's like the "bounce back" effect after a diet, but on steroids. That current research has found other issues (heart problems, ocular nerve damages) just enforced my rejection (I was offered this on a free prescription base).

    I think most medications are meant to be accompanied with permanent lifestyle changes where possible. No, you should not take this drug “forever”.

    That is a very idealistic view, at least on some medication. With Ozempic, this is basically impossible due to the circumstances written above, with other medications it is simply due to the fact that no "lifestyle changes" can change e.g. genetic defects.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    empty/depleted fat cells basically scream “we are hungry”, so as soon as you get off Ozempic, you basically can’t stop eating until you regained at least the former state.

    I don't think that is quite right. If people on Ozempic use the opportunity to adapt to a low carbohydrate diet, when they come off the drugs they won't be suffering from the save sugar craving addiction cycle.

    Fat cells don't scream "we are hungry" they scream "we are full" that is what leptin signaling is for, but carbohydrate addiction is a much stronger signal for many people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    You’re basically blaming the drug for the person’s inability to psychologically deal with diet.

    No, I don't. I'm just stating facts on how the human body works. With extreme willpower you might be able to counter this for a time, yes. But it will be a serious uphill battle, and the messenger chemicals from the depleted fat cells do not just stop because you will them to. You will just have to live in a state of perpetual raving hunger then. The few who can successfully overcome this for a significant time are rare, indeed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    I’m down 100lbs and been chilling there for a a while actually. (I do bulk/cut cycles of around 30lbs for bodybuilding so my total weight loss fluctuates from like 120lbs to 90lbs depending on how that’s going. Just for disclosure)

    But I’ve heard a few people mention this idea that “fat cells stick around forever” and “send hunger signals to fill you back up”. Do we have a scientific source for this?

    My other thing with it is like, that’s not the reason someone gets fat the first time right? Because the idea is your fat cells start multiplying after a certain weight? So regardless it still seems important to address that first cause and not repeat it

    But for me personally I just haven’t really experienced it at all lol. I’ve found that actually the type of food I eat makes me hungry and more likely to go off track. Like any fast food, most prepackaged snacks and prepared meals from the grocery store.

    Like I could eat an 800cal pint of ice cream then have dinner 45 minutes later. But 200 calories of frozen grapes and I’m like, stuffed lol. Or I’ve also noticed if I have a doughnut in the morning (work offers them) I’m hungry all day, but eggs cheese oats and yogurt leave me satisfied to the point where I’m not hungry at all when I get home, and eat just because I know I need the nutrition from dinner.

    Anyway sorry for rambling, really I’m just curious to get to the bottom of the “depleted fat cell” thing. I had never heard of it the entire time I was losing weight/maintaining then all of the sudden I’m hearing it pop up in lots of places, even lemmy now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    The "fat cells are multiplying" is normal when having surplus calories in the body. The "empty fat cells scream hunger" is something that was suspected basically for ages, but has finally be proven not long ago, the paper is less than half a year old. It had been referred to here on Lemmy, at least to a science or nature article that pointed to the paper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Could you direct me to the paper where it was proven? There seems to be a notable amount of bad journalism and broad misrepresentation of the science on this topic.

    We are basically discussing whether or not obesity is an inescapable condemnation, so we should not sensationalize the topic whatsoever, and we should especially not present it as a fact if it is not a fact

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Found it. It was older than I thought, though: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08165-7

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    To be honest, reading thru the study and poking at some of the discussions about it online, it seems to not be remotely saying what people are saying it’s saying lol.

    Like they weren’t able to find many of the results they expected in actual human samples compared to the mice. They also found that slower weight loss seemed to correspond with fewer and less severe epigenetic changes.

    That second point there was never really expanded on beyond a throwaway statement, but it jumped out at me because the humans studied received bariatric surgery. Which causes massive weight loss very quickly. They even cited that as a potential confounding variable.

    It’s also not really about “fat cells multiplying” at all, but rather how a collection of dozens of different factors differ between never obese and formerly obese samples, and only at the two year mark after a weight loss intervention.

    Their own conclusion is that “they have not proven” their findings have anything to do with weight regain. This is then bizarrely and immediately followed by what can only be described as an unprompted advertisement for Ozempic, along with speculative musing that further study is needed to determine if it could be used to “erase or diminish” the epigenetic memory (despite semaglutide being unrelated to the experiments and appearing nowhere else in the paper?). Interestingly enough, there’s also an extant conflict of interest statement linking one of the researches to several pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk

    All in all, it strikes me as nothing more than yet another case of bad science reporting. With people kind of going in with preconceived notions, glossing over all of the details, and emerging with snippets taken out of context (body remembers being fat! It changes your genetics!). Lo and behold all the online discussion centers around just the provocative headline and the speculative sections of the paper.

    It seems like the researches even deliberately tried to use language to bait this type of response from the general public (although this is now just speculation on my part). In summary, I am unpersuaded by the available evidence. Thank you however for linking it! There is a lot of other interesting info in there

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Could you direct me to the paper where it was proven?

    Sadly, no. I sat down and tried to remember the title, but it won't come up. It is not old, two to three months at most, I'd say. I'm going to bed now, maybe it will pop up tomorrow. In that case, I'll update this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    You're right the second article probably doesn't support the hunger bit enough. As i understand it, the hunger signaling is largely an absence of leptin, which is a hormone that regulates appetite. The increase in fat cells from obesity leads to more leptin production and then leptin resistance, so it's less effective. When you diet and lose the weight the fat cells aren't producing as much leptin and you're resistant to what they are producing so you're comparatively hungrier than you may have been if you stayed at a healthier weight. I believe the leptin sensitivity can recover and be improved through other ways but I'm not an expert.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6354688/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Thank you again for the link, but it seems like you’re just reiterating the hypothesis without any supporting evidence? We have a proposed mechanistic explanation for the phenomena that requires further study. My point of contention is that it should be presented as such, and not as a granted fact

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Maybe my sources aren't great, I use kagi nowadays over Google and they have an academic filter (like Google scholar). That's all I used to find the few things I linked.

    It's well established that your fat cell count is relatively stable as an adult and that as you gain significant weight that your body creates more fat cells to store this energy. It's known that the number of cells stay relatively stable even after losing weight, they just shrink. It's also known that leptin, or lack there of, affects your hunger. These things specifically are well documented. Other points of what I shared, and the overall impact may be, still hypothetical.

    I'm not going to keep looking for and reading articles because I'm not finding what you're looking for and that's all good. I don't want to act like I'm an expert, I'm just a nerd reading things on the internet.

    That's not to say, though, that this fat cell count is the end all be all and it's impossible to lose weight because you've already gained too much — your own situation is proof of that. It's just added context, not a barrier. Highly satiating foods like what you've mentioned, grapes over ice cream, eggs oats and yogurt over donuts, these make a much bigger impact on your overall hunger. I feel it too, I'm overweight and working on losing it, and if i snack on something like chips, it almost feels like it does nothing for me. That's why all the weight loss advice mentions high protein and High fiber foods.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Gotcha, yeah and thanks once again for the discussion. What I’m looking for basically is just evidence for the claim posted above us, specifically that “it is a fact that weight loss results in lifelong ravenous hunger due to fat cell signaling”

    Scientists all the time come out with reviews and proposals that ultimately fizzle out without supporting evidence. So before I am able to believe any specific claims I need to see that it’s an actual scientific finding rather than just something tentative that has caught headlines (like I said, it happens all the time).

    Since you like reading studies in general, for your own amusement I would suggest investigating the claim “cooking rice with coconut oil, then leaving it in the fridge overnight, will reduce the calories absorbed by your body by half!”

    It’s a total and blatant piece of misinformation based on a chain of bad news reports made about a study that claimed something totally different, and was subsequently never confirmed. Yet I have met people in real life who swore by the method (even though they struggled to lose weight regardless of this supposed calorie cutting “hack”).

    The weight loss space in general is totally flooded with this type of misinfo which is why I get so particular about it. Thank you again!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    What I’m looking for basically is just evidence for the claim posted above us, specifically that “it is a fact that weight loss results in lifelong ravenous hunger due to fat cell signaling”

    In my reading the the literature there is nothing to support this "fat cells make you hungry" theory.

    At best there is an association between fat people and fat cell population, but given hyperplasia is more common in people of european descent its not a causal connection. Plus this theory doesn't account for fat people from hypertrophic populations (asians).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That reminds me of that peanut butter, professor nutz. They claim that due to adding certain fibers to their peanut butter, it reduces the digested calories from around 200 calories to 36 calories. They took a concept that exists, fiber-fat bonding, and an in house pilot study of 6 people over 2 weeks, and use that to market this as some kind of miracle peanut butter. Is it technically possible that somebody eating that peanut butter only digests 36 calories per serving? Yes, but it's (to me) very unlikely and changes person to person (which they admit).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Because hunger has to do with vitamin balancing and a lot of people don't get enough of certain vitamins which keeps them always behind.

    Eg vitamin A makes your skin slough off in excess and can kill you in very high doses. To treat high vitamin a in the ER, doctors use vitamin e. Vitamin E can make you bleed in excess if you have a deficiency of vitamin K, so vitamin e excess is treated with vitamin k. Vitamin e deficiency can also cause blood clots. Vitamin D interacts with all of the above as well and they actually all interact with each other and make uo a large part of the immune system with downstream effects on other vitamins including b vitamins.

    For a lot of people, once they understand how to balance their vitamins, they dont feel hungry anymore. But people alwyas want a magic pill that splves everything instead

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    That's such a simplistic look at weight gain lol. Wanting food is caused by neurochemicals in your body first before you even eat a bite. Eg Prader-Willis patients gain weight because they have excess ghrellin which makes them super hungry. (It's obvious they do not have Prader-Willis).

    Vitamins are over the counter. We are supposed to eat them every day. Doctors literally ask you if you eat a balanced diet as their first screening question because they are supposed to fix vitamin deficiencies first before treating anything else (lol as if they do that). I think adults, who walk by these same vitamins every day at the store and see ads for them, can read a vague internet comment that they know is a stranger, and know if they should talk to their doctor about their health conditions etc or not. I think they can decide for themselves if they want to try a vitamin regimen, that again, is over the counter and has recommended daily intakes by nutritionists so your body can function.

    Further, there is no overdose range for vitamin k, as in, we haven't found an upper limit where it'll kill you, although if deficient in vitamin e, then blood clots can happen. COQ10 is likewise very safe. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19096117/

    Vitamin E is pretty safe unless you macrodose it every day for a while, and even then, as long as you've got vitamin k (and in some weightlifters do vitamin C) on board it shouldn't be an issue. And again, I never said to macrodose or gave any dose, so why the shaming and policing?

    Last, most overweight people are eating a lot of animal products that contain retinol type vitamin a instead of beta carotene type vitamin a found in plants. Because of the way retinol works, you HAVE to absorb it. To deal with the extra retinol, you need vitamin e and vitamin k, so you start craving fats. Then often people want meat and cheese or a pasta with meat, lasagna, pizza, etc, (which btw I eat too and I eat meat) and yeah they get some vitamin k in that, but not enough vitamin e to deal with the retinol. Which then causes stuff like eczema, allergies, pink irritated skin, dry skin, headache, high blood pressure, nausea, diarrhea - the stuff on the accutane side effects list.

    So the craving continues and feeds itself. I used to be hungry AFTER I ATE and wished I could eat more, and that's not uncommon in people who eat caloric excess - because they actually DO need to eat something else.

    If you take vitamin e, it treats vitamin a overdose symptoms relating to the skin sloughing off and heightened immune system issues. But also vitamin e should be given with vitamin k since vitamin k is relatively benign anyway and helps produce osteocalcin which helps people exercise and want to move/feel good moving.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I've enjoyed reading this discussion. I would like to contribute that the most significant factor in excessive obesity isn't a typically a nutrient deficiency, or even a moral failing in CICO - it's carbohydrate addiction.

    Yes, hunger can be driven by low-levels of essential nutrition, pica during pregnancy is a great example of that. Many people are over-fed and under-nourished, so when they get hungry they continue to go to their deficient food source (probably something carbohydrate heavy).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Addictions aren't real, or at least not like how we thought of them in the 90s.

    It is an imbalance of carbohydrates and "bad" fats (no such things but in excess they become "bad") that your body needs other vitamins to deal with. It's not an "addiction," the word is meant to demonize and scare people, and it's fat phobia to call it that imo.

    No food has everything we need in it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Addictions are real things in both my experience and reading - can you explain how they are not real?

    Carbohydrates are not necessary for human nutrition, so there is no such thing as a carbohydrate imbalance.

    Eating saturated fat does not become bad at any level of consumption.

    Meat has everything we need in it, its the perfect food.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    It's a word used to demonize people doing normal human things like consuming things in excess.

    Carbohydrates are a regular source of energy in food that nearly every unicellular and multicellular form of life utilizes, and are evolutionarily ancient. Everything you eat, must be processed and dealt with, and that takes vitamins. Carbohydrates need to be balanced with other nutrients like all nutrients.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

    All cells use adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP) as their source of metabolic energy to drive the synthesis of cell constituents and carry out other energy-requiring activities, such as movement (e.g., muscle contraction). The mechanisms used by cells for the generation of ATP are thought to have evolved in three stages, corresponding to the evolution of glycolysis, photosynthesis, and oxidative metabolism (Figure 1.5). The development of these metabolic pathways changed Earth's atmosphere, thereby altering the course of further evolution.

    In the initially anaerobic atmosphere of Earth, the first energy-generating reactions presumably involved the breakdown of organic molecules in the absence of oxygen. These reactions are likely to have been a form of present-day glycolysis—the anaerobic breakdown of glucose to lactic acid, with the net energy gain of two molecules of ATP.

    Fats need to be balanced.

    "Meat" - no, not all meat is the same meat. It's regularly an issue with people feeding their pets a raw diet - they only use muscle meat and no organ meat and the pet becomes malnourished.

    Are you eating thyroid? Thymus? Liver? Heart? Testicles? Ovaries? Brains? These all have different nutrients and hormones in them and we still make medicine today from some of these parts.

    Meat does not have enough vitamin e or vitamin k unless you eat liver, but it also has vitamin a and each liver can have varying amounts of what vitamins are stored in it. Vitamin C is also lacking in an all meat diet devoid of organ meats.

    I know weightlifters who are in their 60s regularly macrodosing vitamin e and vitamin c for this reason and they've won competitions in their younger years and had very few serious injuries compared to others. I'm gunna say these vitamins are necessary and your "meat" argument is lacking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    normal human things like consuming things in excess.

    Excess and normal are contradicting each other in this sentence.

    Yes cellular metabolism can use glucose, but that glucose in humans does not need to be eaten in the form of carbohydrates, the body is perfectly able to make its own glucose via gluconeogenesis

    Fats need to be balanced.

    What does this mean?

    Vitamin C is also lacking in an all meat diet devoid of organ meats.

    Vitamin C is in meat in small amounts, but if one is eating only meat then there is not glut4 competition and that vitamin c is very effective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They are not contradictory.

    Ok so no issue with glucose or carbs in isolation

    I explained above and elsewhere, you'll have to search my history or the thread re balancing fats

    It is not enough vitamin C

    I'm not really interested in debating your eating disorder/orthorexia

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (4 replies)
    • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'll bite. I'm on it for what some people here would consider "recreational" purposes (weight loss). However, I have polycystic ovaries and have had extreme difficulty losing weight in other ways. Essentially the only way I can lose weight is doing a pretty severe calorie deficit, which is really hard to do and essentially means I am starving all the time. Ozempic has helped me curb that perpetual feeling of hunger, and besides diarrhea (which I already had often anyway), it hasn't caused me that many side effects.

    Essentially PCOS causes a craving for carbs and sugar. It's hard to fill that hole, but there are other ways to supplement the things that my body is not creating which make me crave those things. While I'm on ozempic (I don't plan on using it long-term) I'm also working to make changes to my diet to make sure I'm getting those things I was missing (B12, chromium picolante, some other stuff with scientific names).

    And I know people think it's just "lazy", which it is for some people, but I struggle to lose weight even with exercise and calorie deficits. Ozempic has helped me lose some, but not as drastic as other people.

    I have friends who are on waygovy (the same drug as ozempic but specifically targeted at weight loss) and they've had more side effects than me, but they are significantly bigger, have less healthy lifestyles and are I believe on a much higher dose than me. They've lost a ton of weight though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I’m basically at the line of pre diabetic so the doc wants something to jumpstart me off the line, i definitely need to make changes but I would love the help to get going. I tend to intermittent fast but when I do eat it’s junk. Most people don’t get it but it’s akin to any addiction. Most times you don’t realize you’re binging till after, so something that can kill my cravings would be lovely

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I haven't done the type of deep dive research others mention here but I trusted my doctor when he told me this was a good choice for me. I also don't live in the US so have no reason to believe he's being paid off. If there are worse consequences than what I've discussed with him already, I guess I'll have to deal with that.

    There are also non-medicinal ways to treat binge eating, and I've known people that have had good success with therapy/CBT for that, in case that's something you can afford or are interested in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Essentially PCOS causes a craving for carbs and sugar

    There is a good amount of literature documenting PCOS being a downstream effect of metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is caused by carbs and sugar. The addiction and cravings are real, but the order is reversed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    My wife has been on wegovy for about 3 months now, which is supposed to be similar. It's ok, I guess. Still ramping up to the full amount and there was one week of really bad digestion issues, but the rest has been fine. She feels full way quicker, and if you go over that amount, you start to feel nauseous, so you stop. Problem is she hasn't really done much else to help it. Still eating the same and hasn't introduced more exercising to help. So far, loss is around 15 lbs, but it's kind of sitting steady around this for a bit now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Try to get her to eat vitamin k1 and/or k2 if you can. It will help her feel like exercising and moving more

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I've never taken Ozempic, but I did used to be a pharmacy tech, and having to tell patients that it was unavailable due to supply issues, on a daily basis, really sucked. I'm sure it was much worse for them.

    Ozempic can be the right choice, but it's good to do plenty of research, and if you can, prioritize lifestyle interventions first. Here's a video series on Ozempic, as well as ways that you can stimulate glp-1 production naturally through diet and lifestyle-

    https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5TLzNi5fYd90bMuM9SuzQ83E1IsM3Yy4

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'm on Mounjaro for diabetes, have lost 35 pounds in two months. It's a tool, with potential side effects, but for me it has been a huge jump-start for a lot of neglected health issues and overall energy levels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I've seen several successes and I wouldn't believe every story you hear in these forums. The data shows it's relatively safe with minimal serious secondary effects. That doesn't mean nothing to manage at all. Just like statins for cholesterol.

    Ozempic and variants are also considered short term. They essentially short circuit the desire for vices, but are only effective for about a year. You either relearn your habits or you'll eventually revert. If you are in ozempic for 2 years on weight loss you've likely ignored your doctor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My ex is on one of those for blood sugar. She’s not losing weight but she said it made a significant difference controlling her blood sugar.

    On the other hand her Dad is also on one of those for blood sugar but he’s never hungry and forgets to eat for days so has lost too much weight. It’s to the point where the doctor said anything he wants, load him up on chips and ice cream if necessary to get him back to a healthy weight

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Im like 190lbs and have high blood sugar. I see guys twice my size eating cheeseburgers and they don’t get it. Doctor told me it’s generic for me, but it doesn’t help that I smoke weed and eat all my kids cereal at 1am

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)