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 > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Tue, Nov-14-23, 17:25
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,967
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

I'm opposed to weight loss drugs, at least for me.

I'm not opposed to candy sweetened with Stevia, if eaten in moderation. At least for me.

Nestle is jumping on the bandwagon. That's what corporations do.

The main job of a corporation is to increase profits every quarter. It needs perpetual growth, or the stockholders will jump ship. Perpetual growth is unattainable in a closed system, which IMO the world is in the shape it is today. I see this as a problem and as much as I've thought about it, I have no idea how to fix it.

So people will buy Ozempic and suffer the side-effects, and people will eat Kit-Kats, and Big Pharma and Nestle will reward their stockholders with a little growth.

Me? I try to find pleasure in my daily life, take care of myself, eat sensibly, and do no drugs if there is a more natural way to solve any maladies that affect me.

To each their own.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Fri, Feb-09-24, 08:38
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,950
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Have we seen this story before? (I can't find it - feel free to delete if we have it on here already)

Quote:

Bosses of the world’s biggest food companies have for months been sounding the alarm on the ways appetite suppressant Ozempic could hurt their products. Now some CEOs appear to be so spooked that they’ve gone straight to its developer, Novo Nordisk, in search of reassurance.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Novo boss Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen said he was fielding calls from bosses of food companies who have been caught in the crosshairs of a global weight loss phenomenon.

“A couple of CEOs from, say, food companies have been calling me,” Jørgensen told Bloomberg.

“They are scared about it.”

But the drugmaker's CEO is unlikely to be too concerned about how weight-loss aids will hurt junk food suppliers' bottom line, and instead more worried about how he can get more of the drugs into shoppers’ nightstands.
CEOs running scared

Jørgensen didn’t name which CEOs had been in touch, or the agenda of the conversations, be it strategy, regulation, or competitiveness. A representative for Novo didn't immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment.

But it’s easy to create a long list of potential candidates who made the call based on comments shared with the media in recent months. Warnings have tended to come from companies that make highly calorific products like fast food, snacks, and desserts.

Hein Schumacher, the boss of Ben & Jerry’s maker Unilever, did however rule himself out of that lineup when speaking to Bloomberg TV Thursday.

Novo’s Ozempic has enjoyed a cultural breakthrough over the last 18 months after its GLP-1 diabetes drug was found to aid weight loss. A seal of approval from Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who said he was using the drug for his own weight loss journey, helped popularize it to the masses.

Since then, the Danish pharmaceutical group’s profile has only grown as the bosses of major retailers and food suppliers took the time to name-drop Ozempic in their earnings calls.

The first was Walmart’s U.S. boss John Furner, who said in October that the company was already beginning to see a material impact on its sales thanks to its Ozempic-using customers.

“We definitely do see a slight change compared to the total population, we do see a slight pullback in overall basket,” Furner said. “Just less units, slightly less calories.”

Calls to Jørgensen may have also come from fast food companies, with short interest in chains like McDonald's, Chipotle, and Starbucks rising in October last year.

Other CEOs have sought to reassure investors that they have a plan if a surge of Ozempic take-up changes the junk food industry forever.

People using appetite suppressants are expected to change their dietary preferences in favor of lower-calorie alternatives that pack in more nutrients.

KitKat maker Nestlé is one of the companies hoping to capitalize on this trend, its CEO telling Bloomberg in October that the group was working on “companion products” packed with vitamins, minerals, and supplements.

“You want to be sure that the weight loss gets supported. You want to be sure that you limit the loss of lean muscle mass,” Mark Schneider said.

Analysts at Barclays, the bank that encouraged a shorting of junk food credits, were bullish on the prospects of French food manufacturer Danone.

Barclays says the food maker could easily double the €500 million ($539 million) in annual sales it makes from its protein yogurts and yogurt drinks if Ozempic users embrace more healthy options, Bloomberg reported.
Supply issues top of Novo's own concerns

But Novo, which recently surpassed a valuation milestone of $500 billion, has more pressing matters on its mind than how food suppliers might be affected by its revolutionary product.

The group has been overwhelmed by a demand surge that vastly outweighed projections, impacting supply and leaving Novo’s potential market short of product. Several countries have moved to limit exports of the drug so it can go to diabetic patients who have a more urgent need for GLP-1s.

Novo announced earlier this week that it had bought three sites in New Jersey for $11 billion from pharma group Catalent, in a bid to accelerate its expansion into the U.S. and address its supply shortage.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Novo Nordisk’s CEO says he’s fielding calls from ‘scared’ junk food suppliers asking for advice over Ozempic surge

(went with the Yahoo link since the story on Fortune was behind a paywall)
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Sun, Feb-11-24, 03:27
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,753
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Clear admission that they make money from human misery.

"Dear heavens, we can't let them be slim and healthy and happy! That would affect our profits."
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Sun, Feb-11-24, 09:25
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,950
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Those who are well into the obese category (meaning they are clearly qualified for the drug) are never going to become slim on the GLP-1 type drugs anyway - the maximum they lose on those drugs is about 20% of their starting weight over the course of 72 weeks. So if someone whose ideal weight is 150 lbs weighs 250 lbs, they're still going to be 50 lbs overweight and still in the obese category at the end of those 72 weeks (16 months)

There's also the issue of continuing to lose ENOUGH weight on the drugs for the insurance to continue to pay for it. If they're not seeing enough weight loss to warrant the continued cost, then they won't pay for it any more. If the individual can't afford to pay out of pocket, they end up quitting the drug, and since they never learned how to eat a reduced amount of food on their own (or eat the kinds of food that naturally reduce hunger levels), the weight comes back on. How quickly it comes back on depends on what kind of self control (white-knuckling it through the hunger) they can manage and for how long they can manage it.


****


I don't know if this belongs in this thread or not, but I read an article a couple of days ago in The Atlantic about how the current weight loss drugs don't work for everyone.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...ht-loss/677411/

(I can post a link, but as soon as I'd read the article, it said that was my last free article, so I can't read it again or quote it unless I'm willing to put up the money for a subscription. I've tried different browsers including a new incognito/private window and they all say the same thing.)

From what I'd heard months ago, all GLP-1 patients start out at the lowest dosage, and many people feel no effects from such a low dosage at all. Dosages are only increased once a month, and it can take a couple of months of increased dosages to reach a therapeutic dose where their appetite is affected enough to start losing weight.

According to the article though there are apparently people who the drug simply doesn't work for them at all, no matter how high the dosage.

However, they said there are a lot more weight loss drugs in development.

They didn't find this the least bit alarming, because there are drugs for many conditions that have have dozens or even hundreds of options to try, since not every drug works for every person. The one they specified as an example was blood pressure medication, and there were hundreds (or did it say thousands?) to choose from. If one doesn't work, they try another, and keep trying until they find one that works to reduce blood pressure to a normal level.

The point is that the current GLP-1 and PYY drugs are only the beginning. As they learn more about how to manipulate the body's response to foods, they'll develop more and more drugs that restrict appetite without the individual needing to actually change what they eat, or intentionally reduce how much they eat, since the drugs themselves result in them eating significantly less.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Tue, Feb-27-24, 20:17
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,967
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

Whenever you buy anything from a corporation, you have to remember this:

The corporation does not care about you. All it cares about is your money.

A corporation has to make more and more and more and more profits every quarter, or the stockholders will jump ship.

Make sure you are aware of that whenever you buy something corporate, and then evaluate if it is good for you or not. The corporation doesn't care, all it cares about is your money.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Tue, Feb-27-24, 21:17
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,329
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Are they going to give it a catchy name, like "Ayds"? The caramel-flavoured chew was marketed as an appetite-suppressant candy, but went out of business during the Aids crisis in the mid-1980s. The active ingredient was originally benzocaine, presumably to reduce the sense of taste to reduce eating, later changed in the candy (as reported by The New York Times) to phenylpropanolamine.

Last edited by deirdra : Tue, Feb-27-24 at 21:25.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Tue, Feb-27-24, 22:13
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,950
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
Are they going to give it a catchy name, like "Ayds"? The caramel-flavoured chew was marketed as an appetite-suppressant candy, but went out of business during the Aids crisis in the mid-1980s. The active ingredient was originally benzocaine, presumably to reduce the sense of taste to reduce eating, later changed in the candy (as reported by The New York Times) to phenylpropanolamine.


My mom used those, only hers were the chocolate flavor.

I thought the benzocaine was to numb the stomach so you didn't feel so hungry, but I would imagine it worked to numb the taste buds too.



I'm sure they'll brainstorm some catchy names like

O-Zem-wow!
Wego-chews
Zep-bits
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Thu, Feb-29-24, 04:16
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,753
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Ick! I had strep throat and used that numbing spray. But that's not candy But it did make food unappetizing. Which goes to show this has long been a civilization problem, not a hunter/gather one. People will do ANYTHING except stop eating sugar when food has become their drug.

And I think most kept this danger under control when they lived in a culture that did not bombard a person with processed opportunity every waking hour. A plain baked potato will give a person a sugar rush, if they would eat it. Starch is the same thing, chemically.

Which is how sweetened starch is determined to be our new future. And we need a drug to make us want the old one less?

If it weren't for the side effects, it would be a fool-proof plan. Just how much medicine is about saving us from what OUR FOOD is doing to us? They are creating their own market.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Thu, Feb-29-24, 08:50
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,950
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Ick! I had strep throat and used that numbing spray. But that's not candy But it did make food unappetizing. Which goes to show this has long been a civilization problem, not a hunter/gather one. People will do ANYTHING except stop eating sugar when food has become their drug.

And I think most kept this danger under control when they lived in a culture that did not bombard a person with processed opportunity every waking hour. A plain baked potato will give a person a sugar rush, if they would eat it. Starch is the same thing, chemically.

Which is how sweetened starch is determined to be our new future. And we need a drug to make us want the old one less?

If it weren't for the side effects, it would be a fool-proof plan. Just how much medicine is about saving us from what OUR FOOD is doing to us? They are creating their own market.


Not disagreeing - just want to make sure it's understood that these are 2 different markets.

There's the food manufacturers (Ok, UPF manufacturers) - their goal is to create and sell as much irresistible food as possible.

Then there's the drug market, and one of their current goals is to create drugs that reduce the individual's desire for irresistible food, and of course to sell as much of those appetite reducing drugs as possible.

That puts their goals in direct conflict with each other.

This is a very different scenario from the UPF market creating snacks and treats that diabetics can't resist, and drug manufacturers spiking the price on insulin because diabetics who can't resist UPF end up needing more insulin to keep their blood sugar somewhat under control.

The UPF companies are seeing the writing on the wall - If they lose sales because their best customers are suddenly their former best customers, that is a very serious problem for their industry, and as long as the weight loss drugs are selling more and more, it's likely to become even more of a problem - creating UPFs that are geared towards those whose appetites have been seriously dampened by drugs is going to be their natural goal, one they will pursue desperately.

Bob said it well:

Quote:
Whenever you buy anything from a corporation, you have to remember this: The corporation does not care about you. All it cares about is your money. A corporation has to make more and more and more and more profits every quarter, or the stockholders will jump ship.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Fri, Mar-01-24, 20:44
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,967
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

In millions of years of human history, there was no way to store food for the starvation season (winter in the temperate zone and the dry season in the tropics).

Those who survived the starvation season put on a lot of weight before, and lived mostly from their fat reserves until the spring or the rainy season returned. Bears and others do that before hibernating.

The people that, put on the most weight, plus liked and ate a lot of sugar when the fruit ripened right before the starvation season, survived. So they passed their sweet tooth genes on to us. Those who didn't like sugar never made it to spring or the rains.

So loving sweets and eating massive quantities of them are in our genes. We can't help it.

But after millions of years, we now have ways to store the food through the starvation season. We don't have to depend on finding enough to eat every day, just to make it until tomorrow.

So that sweet tooth and the urge to indulge it in a big way have become a liability instead of an asset.

We have to understand that, and use whatever works for each individual to keep in shape for our own health. My parents died too soon due to obesity related diseases. I don't want that for myself, I like living.

I found what works for me, a ketogenic diet. I'm 77, in the very upper range of 'normal' in my BMI, on zero prescription medications, and according to my doc have a heart/circulatory system of a healthy 50-year-old person.

I've been on this diet since it was called Atkins Induction, and that's a long time. I was on my way to the 300 pound average in my family.

Sure, I still miss fried potatoes, chocolate cake, pecan pie, donuts, and so on, but the sacrifice is worth it. I've already lived longer than my father did, and am healthier than he was when he was in his 50s.

Will keto work for everyone? I have no idea. I do know if you want to be healthy and have a potentially long life, you need to find what works for you and stick to it.

Drugs are not the answer, Every drug comes with side effects, some worse than others, some won't rear their ugly symptoms for years, when it's too late.

My childhood family doctor preached to use drugs as a last resort. I think that was good advice.

So there will be no ayds, ozempic, or whatever alphabet soup drug they invent next for me.

If you want a longer, healthier life, do what you need to do. If you would rather take a risk and enjoy life today more, that's a valid choice too. After all, you could live in perfect health and have a meteorite fall from the sky and kill you way before your time.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Sat, Mar-02-24, 04:38
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,753
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
Not disagreeing - just want to make sure it's understood that these are 2 different markets.

There's the food manufacturers (Ok, UPF manufacturers) - their goal is to create and sell as much irresistible food as possible.

Then there's the drug market, and one of their current goals is to create drugs that reduce the individual's desire for irresistible food, and of course to sell as much of those appetite reducing drugs as possible.

That puts their goals in direct conflict with each other.


I was thinking that making them sick with bad food was in best interest of pharma profit.

Heart disease and diabetes drugs are HUGE moneymakers, is what I was thinking. Not collusion. But causation.

Which leads me to my bigger question: Are drugs and medical all we can do? Is this another case of only having a hammer?

That's why I'm back to public health and prevention. Like a recent article said, "Just like tobacco."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 15:09.


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