What to know about the new weight loss drug tirzepatide. Will it be affordable?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An Eli Lilly drug if approved for weight loss could become the best-selling drug of all time, but concerns are mounting about who will actually be able to afford it.
Experts are confident that the drug, called tirzepatide, will be granted approval by the Food and Drug Administration sometime next year. If that's the case, it would join two other popular — and expensive — recently approved weight loss drugs on the market, Wegovy and Saxenda, both from the drugmaker Novo Nordisk.
Annual sales of tirzepatide could hit a record $48 billion, according to an estimate from Bank of America analyst Geoff Meacham. Another Wall Street analyst, Colin Bristow at UBS, estimated the drug would reach $25 billion in annual sales — a figure that would still surpass the record $20.7 billion set by AbbVie's rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira in 2021.
Kelly Smith, a spokesperson for Eli Lilly, declined to comment on what tirzepatide will cost. Outside experts said it is possible the drugmaker could price it similarly to Wegovy, which carries a list price of around $1,500 for a month's supply, and Saxenda, which costs about $1,350 for a month's supply.
If the FDA confirms the drug's effectiveness, a "fair" price for tirzepatide could be around $13,000 annually, or around $1,100 a month, said Dr. David Rind, the chief medical officer for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a research group that helps determine fair prices for drugs.
The drugs have been shown in clinical trials to be highly effective for weight loss. All three drugs — which are given as injections — work in a similar way: They're a class of drugs called GLP-1 agonists, which mimic a hormone that helps reduce food intake and appetite.
However, Eli Lilly's tirzepatide also imitates a second hormone, called GIP, which along with reducing appetite, may also improve how the body breaks down sugar and fat.
A phase 3 clinical trial found a high dose of tirzepatide helped patients lose 22.5% of their body weight on average, or about 52 pounds, better than any medication currently on the market. Most patients in the trial had a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher. In trials, Wegovy and Saxenda reduced body weight by around 15% and around 5%, respectively.
Are weight loss drugs covered by insurance?
At lower doses, all three of the drugs are already approved to treat diabetes.
- Tirzepatide is sold under the name Mounjaro for diabetes.
- Semaglutide, when marketed for weight loss, is sold at a higher dose and called Wegovy; at a lower dose, it's marketed for diabetes and sold as Ozempic.
- Similarly, a higher dose of the drug liraglutide is sold under the name Saxenda for weight loss, and at a lower dose, it's sold as Victoza, for diabetes.
With the exception of Mounjaro, which was approved earlier this year, the versions of the drugs used to treat diabetes are covered by most insurance.
That's not always the case when they are prescribed for obesity.
Obesity carries a unique stigma, said Dr. W. Scott Butsch, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. Many physicians, he said, still see it as a behavioral problem rather than a medical one.
That belief — in addition to older anti-obesity medications not being very effective — has made insurers reluctant to cover many of the new therapies, he said.
"You have a bias," Butsch said, adding that insurance companies ask for more proof of the benefits of anti-obesity drugs than they normally would for other kinds of medications.
Some insurers may select one of the weight loss drugs and offer coverage, he said, but they often restrict access only to patients who meet a certain threshold, such as a BMI greater than 30.
What's more, Butsch said, not everyone responds the same way to any given weight loss drug. If the drug covered by insurance isn't effective for that patient, there are usually no other drug options left, he said.
Dr. Holly Lofton, the director of the weight management program at NYU Langone Health, regularly prescribes the new drugs to her patients but many, she says, are denied coverage by their insurance. "Patients tell me that it appears to them as if insurance companies want to wait until they get so sick that they have more of a necessity for a medication," she said.
Lofton said that some of her patients will end up spending thousands of dollars out of pocket for the medication for a few months as they negotiate with their insurer to get coverage. Patients usually aren't reimbursed by their insurance plan for the money they've already spent on the drugs, she added.
Dr. Fatima Stanford, an obesity medicine specialist and the equity director of the endocrine division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said that private insurance coverage for anti-obesity medications is spotty, with treatments often restricted to the most expensive plans.
Medicare does not cover them. Anti-obesity drugs are not a mandatory Medicaid benefit, though some states have opted to include them, she said.
Obesity is considered a chronic illness, and like any other chronic illnesses, most patients are expected to take the medication for their entire lives — a great financial burden if they are forced to pay out of pocket, Stanford said.
The only people who will likely be able to afford a drug like tirzepatide on their own, she said, will be the "very rich."
Despite the barriers to access, UBS analyst Bristow said he still expects tirzepatide to be a blockbuster drug for obesity, noting that the U.S. is already seeing supply shortages for the drug as a diabetes injection.
"It's pretty clear how strong the demand is," he said.
What needs to change?
Lofton, of NYU Langone Health, said insurance coverage of anti-obesity drugs may not improve until more people in the medical field change how they view obesity. It's not something that diet, exercise or sheer willpower can fix — instead, it's a dysregulation of fat cells in the body, she said.
Bias and stigma about obesity run rampant throughout the medical community.
It's "evident across all health professionals, including physicians, nurses, dietitians and others," said Lisa Howley, an educational psychologist and the Association of American Medical Colleges' senior director of strategic initiatives and partnerships.
A review published last year in the research journal Obesity found that health care professionals hold implicit and/or explicit weight-biased attitudes toward people with obesity.
But shifting the opinion of the medical community — and with it, insurance companies — is extremely difficult. Requiring anti-obesity drugs to be covered by insurance may require legislative action, Stanford said.
In 2021, lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, which would have allowed the federal government to expand Medicare Part D coverage to include anti-obesity medications. The legislation had 154 bipartisan co-sponsors, according to Congress.gov, but did not receive a vote on the House floor before the term ended.
America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, a trade group that represents insurance companies declined to say whether it would support coverage of tirzepatide should the drug win FDA approval next year or other anti-obesity drugs.
"Health insurance providers routinely review the evidence for medications and surgical treatments for obesity, and they offer many options to patients — ranging from lifestyle changes and nutrition counseling to surgical interventions to prescription drugs," said David Allen, a spokesman for AHIP.
Butsch, of the Cleveland Clinic, said he is hopeful insurance companies will cover tirzepatide.
"We're seeing really for the first time highly effective anti-obesity medications," he said. "The benefit is real."
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
People with diabetes already have enough trouble getting Mounjaro, let’s make it even harder for them.
Wanna know what is affordable? Eating less and exercise
Insulin resistance is real as it creates a fat layer that can be exacerbated and expanded; it comes from people being ignorant of how toxic our food industries are and toxic they are for one reason: Too much freedom is killing people through their mouths! You want it? Somebody is willing to sell it to you, us, to ingest! Just wait for them to hang out the 'next' business shingle/sign: OPEN.
I hate to admit it yet several times I have watched that show 600 pound life (or something).
For most of them it started in childhood and by the time they were adults were already over the tipping point.
There is this discussion going on about NOOM lifelong diet change and psychology plan of eating which tries to switch off the way people think about eating.
But you see... it IS something that diet, exercise and willpower combined DO fix. All the time.
Now, if rich people want to pay $18k/yr for a wonder drug that does half the work for them, that's up to them. It's better than some of the other shit they spend money on, so why not?
There are plenty people through no fault of their own are being 'poisoned' by their society and its drive to have the liberty and freedom to sell toxins and fight to continue selling fat-producing substances 365 days a year, by the 'triple-ton,' and 24/7. The poor, working, stiff and the educated ones as well don't stand a chance of understanding all the ways their exercise programs and running schedules and walking excursions are being defeated by what is ingested: Good across the lips, but wretched across the hips. And then there is the phases of life-which no one can explain sufficiently to another person. . . until "it" hits!
Of course it's not their fault. It's the Frito Lay agents who break into their houses every night and force-feed them. There really ought to be a law.
Look! At the least you could try to understand, particularly since we don't know anything about your status (obese or 'chiseled' in the real world) of eating processed foods or whole foods.
Many people are not even understanding of the debate about our foods. We have too much sugar/shortening/hydrogenated oils in our foods and then we can move on to sodium and so forth. It's pervasive and in many cases 'hidden' and called by a 'battery' of differing names.
People are damned to eat it if they shop in stores. . . and who living in a city is not going to go to the supermarket for "supplies"?
Then, we can move on to expense. The idea of eating wholesome grains, fresh vegetables and fruits, nuts and fresh vegetable is prohibitive because of the location and time constraints required (each day) to prepare them. I do not suggest that it can not be done; the cost to do so is prohibitive and one will soon 'lapse' back to just getting processed/fast foods.
It's 2023. It's a new year. Let us (all) practice being good as we can be to one another on the comment side.
NOTE: I am not excusing obese people who know how to do better in-spite of our fast-food and processed meats culture. But, the 'forces' are definitely lined up to give maximum freedom to people who make the foods-as well, maximum freedom to the people who eat the food. Leading to poorly fed people who are not in any way shape or form healthy-fed.
Exactly, what good is his opinion if we can’t see his physique.
The point, which you kindly and deliberately decided to ignore is people write/talk in this manner and it is allowed. However, if somebody is going to start the year off doing the same stinkin thinkin that preoccupied them last year-where is the growth? Go ahead, tell me where the growth is, Drinker of the Wry.
New year. New attitude. Write/talk to me, us and not write/talk pass me, us.
I do understand. And it's 6'4", 212lbs, BTW.
No. We're not going to do this thing where we pretend that people who have spent years making decisions that have produced predictable outcomes are somehow not responsible for those decisions.
We also have far too little discipline in our food selection, portion control, alcohol intake and exercise habits.....which is the MUCH larger problem. We also have far too little discipline with our children, which the next generation of the problem.
Interesting observation. You consider there is FAR TOO LITTLE DISCIPLINE with the children; this is an area for which conservatives argue is a right and privilege of parents to 'manage and control' by the way - not society, and yet appear to straddle the fence on management and control of industry foods sold to children and adults! Where is the consistency?
Thank you for sharing something about yourself to help fill in the gap in understanding who is doing the 'talking' in this situation!
You're right too: People should fight against gluttony. When the problem is good food can not be purchased at reasonably low prices, that industry is looking to 'short-cut' food substances and look for "expedient" ways to make more profit out of the food supplies we must all intake, and do these things to busy and poorly informed masses-then:
A 'miracle' pill enters stage left. Unfortunately, even it comes with the strain on the populace of being 'made' for profit!
It is telling that in order to be healthy in mind, body, and spirit combined, a higher percentage of offerings/choices in our food supply were anyone to look into it properly would be taken out of supply/stock.
I'm not sure why you would think it's a political issue. You're wandering again.
Good food is available, and it's not more expensive. People just don't buy it.
It is a political issue, because some conservatives don't like regulations in general and food and drug regulations, specifically.
As for your "wandering" slight; don't bother trying to correct my comments unless there is a serious breach of house rules or some utter distortion of the facts. Otherwise, doing so is UNWELCOMED.
The good food we look forward too. BTW, I am 5'11 and 185 lbs (down from 190 lbs). I have never been obese, but am pre-diabetic (it is under control and no meds for it). I can not tell you how angry I was when I realized that I did not have to have diabetics (since I have always been a reasonable foodstuffs consumer) but, there are no PSAs (Health Departments - State or National) that explain the workings of the pancreas and its relationship to blood sugar and the brain!
What our society seems dedicated to, and in a lot of ways it is APPROPRIATE undoubtedly, is us having more liberties and freedoms of a SELECT sort (mustn't give us all the freedoms we truly need to be happy and prosperous diverse citizens—even though said unconstrained actions can lead to bad health, tooth decay, any array of ailments, and even nutrient deficient foods that cause death over the course of time.
One more thing: I don't fully understand and accept that you have not heard, read, or seen that our foodstuff is deficient in key nutrients because of the use of chemicals, removal of whole grains, and/or added by-products. All deemed acceptable to create the categories: Processed foods and Fast Foods.
We're talking about personal discipline and the discipline of children.
Bullshit. We're not doing this thing where you change the subject every time you don't like how a conversation is going. As you say... new year, new attitude.
Congratulations. Seriously.
CB, you're expecting government agencies to give you good advice. I don't even know how to address that.
The internet is awash with information on exactly the issue you describe. Why on earth would you rely on government agencies to inform you? They give terrible advice on just about everything.
Good. That would be false. You'll notice I've given no such indication.
Our point of disagreement rests upon who is responsible for the dietary choices people make, and to what degree the rest of us should be restricted because some people need to be protected from themselves.
Actually I am not! I am talking about industry constantly lobbying to sell what sells to the public in mass quantities and those who have the authority and oversight to control it.
You are talking about children and trying to blame everybody for what they are served in packages, boxes, and trays as food- quantity versus quality.
So you see government agencies as a detriment to society; I see government agencies as components with oversight and authority in our communities across the nation. In which case, the statement (unknown author) goes something like this: A man was asked why he robbed a bank, to which he replied: "Because that's where the money is."
We have health departments in our communities, because that is where trained professionals go to do service for the communities of this nation, including national government services. That some conservatives are 'hard at work' making there jobs dismally complex and political downtrodden does not change the charter they have been given. In which case, you can say you go to your physician for health advice.
I will remind you that most ordinary citizens do not have a family physician, unless you say to me it is the Emergency Room!
Well let me tell you how my new attitude will work. I don't try to diminish the quality of your comments by snark, bombast, or ad hominem attack, and you do the same back. Because otherwise "bad attitude" will be all that is left. And that last: gross waste of both of our time served here.
I already agreed that once an individual knows how to do better; then some - not all-responsibility falls on the individual to do his/her part to achieve and maintain good health. INDUSTRY has to supply resources since we are dependent as consumers to purchase foodstuffs for the masses through drop locations, that is markets.
Above I have placed in bold where you chopped my paragraph and its context off to make some stilted personal denial, while seemingly (and disjointedly) approving of the remainder of it.
I won't ask why you did that; just don't do it again if you want to be clear. You do want to be clear as you can be, no?
plenty of good food and good for you food available.
of course, a little personal effort is required.
most people are overweight because of their own tastes, preferences, and inability to read labels.
Yet, it does beg the question why industry has such a bad 'rap' for selling poor quality foods for high-quality dollars! Also, when there is quality foods on the market at reasonably good price margins (which can be sufficiently eaten on a day; week; monthly; yearly basis) inevitably some business CEO decides to "F" them up by removing the uniformity in names of ingredients known (trusted and/or accepted) by the public! Among other tricks of the trade.
As for me, clearly, I became better informed about nutrition when I became pre-diabetic! Since, doing so, and considering it a betrayal that I was not 'warned' to take care of all the years I was consuming mass quantities of my "favorite things" sugar-related. Indeed, I had never heard the term PRE-DIABETICS until I, at long last, got it. You might say that is my own ignorance and it would be so. However, diabetics is a known. Someone authority/agent or agency should have been/be warning the public about it! And many other ailments caused by food too as a preventive measure.
Seems to me that it is widely known that sugar can be bad for you, especially in high levels, it is constantly in the news and if you ever listen to one of the tv doctors, they all say sugar is bad.
Companies sell what sells best. Everyone TALKS a lot about eating healthy but amazingly the number of people who actually do eat healthy are few.
I have worked in the restaurant business for over 40 years, and I know what sells. Fried food is still king in many parts of the country. Ranch dressing has become America's go-to dressing.
People demand convenience, which in many cases doesn't lend itself favorably to healthy eating.
To be clear (I mentioned this above some wheres) I felt betrayed by industry standards which put too much sugar in a variety of food packagings to be consumed in a single meal/day. Because industry knows what it is doing, and more importantly WHY they are doing it. Even fight for the right and privilege to do 'it': Capital/Profit.
I do understand the problem of people who overindulge themselves ignorantly in the bliss of heavy food/diet consumption. It does not alleviate that our food stocks/supplies are heavy-laden with salt/sugar/shortening and so forth and so on 'toxicity' through industry being allowed to mass produce these products and sell them at will to the public pervasively.
It goes under the heading: Freedom and Liberty. Again, I get it!
We want all the freedom and liberty we can stand. However, sometimes freedom and liberty can and does get us sick, terminally ill, and graveyard dead.
Who is 'policing' what is put into the product cans we consume. Sodium count for instance. Who explains to the unaware that sodium plays a big factor in high blood pressure over the course of one's life? Like smoking, consuming fast and process foods is cumulative in reaching bad health outcomes.
Fried foods are toxic like a gateway 'drug' to cumulative heart disease. Where are the warnings? "Southern cooking" is tasty and heart unhealthy.
Finally, by the time the majority of us are convinced that our food stock is literally and incrementally killing us, it is usually once the doctor is issuing a diagnosis!
The food industry could/should be better, "best," even in what is asks of its public. After all, we are loyal to eat from industry production 'tables' every day of our lives!
People do demand expediency. They demand/want to survive and live long healthy lives too, in order to enjoy all the freedom and liberty they can, nevertheless. Thus, 'ease' can not be the only criteria—indeed, to eat wholesome foods expediency is ranked very low on the wellness list.
I prefer to let consumers buy what they want no matter the consequences (as long as it is a legal product) and feel we don't need the government to step in and 'rescue' us from ourselves.
There are plenty of healthy options available. Sometimes the cost is more because what doesn't sell is usually more expensive. Americans demand their convenience and immediate satisfaction. Putting some warning labels on stuff isn't going to have any major effects on what we buy if that is what we want.
I believe most health classes in school cover the importance of diet on the human body.
We have been inundated with commercials for years now boasting about "lower sodium" or "sodium free". I think it safe to say that the vast majority of folks know that sugar and salt in excess are not good for you, and green vegetables and exercise are good for you.
I didn't say how the education of Americans through "warning labels" is the answer (you did). Did you really mean to state this:
Because it seems off.
I understand the liberty and freedom matter, Texan1211. However, do consider this for instance. A restaurant can sell high quality food that's very tasty and take out. . . that is the point of the business to sell 'product.' Thus, the product is designed to delight the senses/palate.
But a look at a ingredient list and the high measured amounts used to achieve a signature product/line or even a run of the mill successful menu offering, can lead to obesity in people who eat out too much. Many do eat out routinely or request deliveries. The only one knowing exactly what is in the foods served is the chef and staff. In the mode of expediency, the consumer only is most time only interested in taste.
Thus, we end up with morbidly obese citizens, who have long been separated from the cause of the malaise effects they are enduring 'today.'
Bottomline, our food industries/suppliers need a total shift in how they think about offering up foodstuffs to our citizenry. Because this product can't fix itself through eating discipline when hidden calories and weight gain substances are pervasive on every store shelf.
I, you, we can not expect every citizen to have the time to become nutritionists or personal trainers dedicated to staying fit!
Finally, as we age all of that training goes out the window, because we fall 'prey' to sickness and disease which has an effect of us exercising even less than before!
Then, who do you expect to buy the 'miracle pill'? Who? Since we "know the importance. . . ." and "the vast majority of folks know. . .sugar and salt in excess are not good. . . .
Who is this miracle drug, Tirzepatide, targeting. (Clearly not the informed (who know something is seriously wrong in the food marketplace).) So who will be its 'client-base? Surely all the fat/obese people in this country are not just lazy or negligent to even try to stay healthy.
Our food system needs a serious overhaul. Nevertheless, I understand just how hard it will be to make the structural changes needed.
Food label requirements began in 1973.
If labels educate the public, we wouldn't be talking about it today.
Of course we can't do that but I don't think asking folks to use an iota of common sense and maybe just a little thinking is asking too much.
Look at that this way:
People smoke even today. We have labeled cigarettes since the 1960's. We have raised the age at which we allow young people to smoke. We have outlawed smoking in almost every public space. Stats have been publicized greatly about how many deaths are attributed to smoking each and every year. And yet, people chose to smoke.
The same people who sat through those classes in school, heard endless stats cited, seen countless thousands of ads for weight loss, weight control, exercise equipment, all kinds of special diets, seen loved ones die because of the effects of obesity, etc.
Based on their clinical trial, people with a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher.
Smoking? True. Even a 'handsome' minority of healthcare providers smoke (have not kicked the habit). But this is significantly different. We all have to eat; and if you live in the city, it is inevitable you will eat from a market. The cost is prohibitive for foods that are mediocre: sufficient in vitamins and other such things but also laden with EXCESS salt and sugar. And then there is the cumulative factor of intake on a daily basis.
We can go on and on about this. But to what end? People are not SIMPLY STUPID: The is a cause which is making them obese and that cause is not simply intake of otherwise healthy foods. Our food is allowed to have ingredients which are harmful and fat-causing in abundance.
Of course, then we come to the little observed notice of portion size. . . .
But, let's wind this down. Either you are aware that "all involved" have a role to play-including the role of check and balances by the authorities or you are not (or choose to ignore the narratives, which are EVIDENCED by companies which SELL the public other means of getting the PROPER AMOUNT of nutrients not 'recoverable' in our food stores.
Well, there you go they got OBESE in spite of themselves. The blame game never stops and there are lobbyists who profit off of little to nothing changing as they keep serving up excesses hidden in our food. And, for the record, no one wants to be obese. Thus, that being the case, start looking for what is making them obese in the first place! You will find a culprit, if you look close enough.
A position that begins with the premise that some "industry" is responsible for the personal choices Americans make about what to eat. A premise that I believe is complete nonsense.
I blame the people who make the decisions about what they and their children eat because THEY have the choice and THEY choose poorly.
Not always, no.
CB, you get a lot of criticism on here for what people describe as your "victim mentality". If those people were better educated they would describe your worldview more correctly as one built on a very heavy sense of a well-established psychological principle called "external locus of control".
Most of the people you label as "conservatives", including me, have a worldview based on a heavy sense of the converse principle called "internal locus of control".
You can read a little bit about that here:
These ideas operate on a spectrum, either end of which is full of foolishness.
You're trying to press this "industry is at fault" nonsense because you're searching for a way to explain rampant obesity and still cling to your external locus of control ideology. But you're never going to be able to make that work.
Well when you start off not realizing or accepting that contextually we are discussing the FOOD industry, either it is ignorance of what is being written on your part or deliberate arrogance to fail to understand. You be the judge of which.
No. All of it. All of the responsibility falls on the individual. Nobody is being held down and force fed junk food.
They do supply all of those. I've bought them for years.
There is a produce section in every grocery store. Food stamps buy skim milk just like they do whole milk and they buy high-fiber cereal just like they buy Frosted Flakes. Chicken is cheaper than ground beef. Turkey bacon costs less than pork bacon. Diet sodas cost the same as sugared ones.
The same company that makes Cocoa Puffs also makes Fiber One.
Industries supply what people choose to buy. For decades, Americans have chosen sugar, convenience, and huge portions over protein, meal preparation and moderation.
I presumed you were smart enough to understand which industry I was referencing. Apparently my confidence was misplaced.
I am saying good food is readily available and as consumers, we should become educated about what consequences our choices have given us.
I don't think gvt. warning labels do a damn thing unless people read and base their choices on it.
I don't think people want to be obese, but when they continually make bad choices, it is their own fault unless a medical condition causes their obesity.
the analogy with smoking was directly related to your wanting more labels on products and to illustrate the futility of them.
food has had labels for years yet we have more obese folks now.
Well JACK_TX as a member of the 'blacks' in the human race; as a member of the 'gays' sexually, I have been victimized by CONSERVATIVES as a given! I need not lay my life bare to you; you are not laying any of yours bare here. And now, racial and sexual categories fail to . For instance, you seem to think you can ARGUE my life experiences and the experiences of 'blacks' and 'gays ' from a white, heterosexual, WORLDVIEW. You can not.
You have no idea what it is to be BLACK in the United States and experiencing people putting you down "just because." You have no understanding of how a subculture was formed for men and women you consider NASTY "just because."
Even now, you stand in opposition or at least ASSOCIATE your worldview with those who oppose blacks generally, homosexuals specifically, and without a shadow of doubt demonize and otherize liberals.
So I don't need you to classify me. In fact, until all things are equal, don't bother wasting your time trying to tell me that my past OUGHT to have been as equal or equitable (nay-conservatives argue against equity!) as what the white conservative majority in this country wrought for its 'tribe.' History is replete with the good, bad, and shortcomings of White conservatives actively holding back minorities, other minorities (including Native Americans), disabled people, women, and now the 'new kid' on the dias: Transpersons. or indifference to any/every group of non-conservatives .
What would benefit the whole of this nation is to listen to someone on the other side about who we are, our problems, our issues and stop incessantly trying to impress "whiteness" as the only acceptable worldview for a nation 'loaded' with people of diversity!
One more thing, you would like to have us to pretend that the history of this country is about White Anglo Saxon Protestant control, even when you do not clearly 'articulate' it, it is present in your writings to be understood. Well Jack_TX to get along with WASP should not require I be WASP or "WASP-like." Therefore, when are conservatives going to respect our diversity and stop INSISTING we become WASP-like or remain pariahs through your politics, writings, and dealings with us?!
The internal locus of control says conservatives who feel they have it as an approach to life, should find it easy to let other people in this country live without constantly having conservative CULTURE WARS waged against their very ideas of what happiness is as individuals and collectives!
where in the hell did that come from?
why are you trying to make this a racial issue at all, or a gay one, or a conservative or liberal issue?
you seem to want to talk a bunch of stuff wholly unrelated to the topic.
Your "MO" is manifesting right on schedule. To which I say: PASS. If you can figure out the answer to your own questions (above) then I can't help you.
if I could explain your off topic comments I would not ask.
I'll just assume someone said something you didn't like and couldn't rebut, so you diverted to other topics.
I am done arguing with you. You don't care about what is happening; you simply PREACH/teach conservative ideology. I won't bother again stating where it goes awry when you try to leave industry out of the discussion. It is plain you don't intend to be fair to all involved. I have stated that all of us, industry included, have a role to play. in reality. You sir, have not confirmed the same.
Retort.
Jack_TX, I won't insult your intelligence. I will take for granted you understand what constitutes civil discussion and just leave it at that.
Where did I say anything about placing any additional labels on food products? Please quote me, Texan1211. Proceed.
makes as much sense as the senseless ramblings about blacks, gays, and conservatives on an article about food.
The amount of arrogance you are permitted to deliver in a discussion is astounding.
you complained of what you called hidden calories. there exists labels specifying calories and all large fast food chains have it posted by law.
people chose what and when they eat, and how it is prepared.
the amount of off topic meanderings you render is what is astounding.
Industry hides calories and controversial substances by using names for products on the packaging for which people are not familiar. If you don't know this, it is not my problem. For example: Vegetable shortening (hydrogenated solid oils) is in many foods we consume. It is better than trans fat but still not heart healthy.
A short video that encompasses the issue, but does not tell the whole story. For that we would need more:
Ordinary people did not cause the makers of Crisco shortening to invest in the oils found in its products for all those years. And even today, on store shelves vegetable shortening can be found in a multiplicity of products in varying gram amounts.
Vegetable oil is better for people. But how will they know, if it is not put out there before their eyes to understand?
calories are listed on products. as a responsible consumer it is on you to read, learn, and decide for yourself what, when, and how much to consume. if your personal choices have led to health problems, perhaps you should reflect on your own choices which saddled you with problems.
Oh I do read labels and do so aggressively. This article is about a miracle drug for obese people: I am not. So what do you deduce from this? That is a rhetorical question.
I will digress to say this only once. There are industry 'doings' that have led in the past and in the present to obese people with a 'mountain' of ailments because of a host of products being sold and a lack of portion control.
I do find it interesting that libertarians and traditionalist conservatives who say the government can't be trusted is in here dismissing the foibles of private industry which are equally distrustful—regulation has made significant improvements in food offerings to the public, nevertheless.
That you try to 'stand me' down is laughable. That you are dismissive of what I am communicating and should know better than this is so typical of you. And its shameful!
But shame is not something some conservatives acknowledge any more. Alas! woe is the nation and us all.
I thought that olive and canola oil was the healthiest, neither are a vegetable.
portion size is at the discretion of the consumer.
looky here, once again some tangent into your favorite whipping boy-- some conservatives. painfully predictable and futile.
How about flax seed, avocado or walnut oil, are they vegetables:
you must have seen some articles or read the labels or seen an ad.
they are better for you.
most restaurants use canola oil.
Grape seed, sesame, sunflower oil are they vegetable:
Which begs the question that food industry in order to increase shelf life and taste in the past and today add UNHEALTHY oils (fats) to our fast/processed foods!
you might want to prevent ingesting those oils by stopping eating fast/processed foids.
see.? the info is readily found if one looks.
I’m not in the food industry.
I did NOT hint you were.
Here is something to consider in the form of a video:
This kind of information delivery can help explain why people can 'hunt' for data and ASK for advice on how to eat from those who should be in the know—yet, get contradictory, incomplete, or frustrating volumes of information in return from the food industry.
Other than that. . .in its own fashion the video itself is instructive.
BTW, I can remember reading some controversial information about canola oil too.
That said, I would be open to reassessing it if you (or TEXAN1211) has something I can peruse on it.
Texan be a lot less 'obvious.' I am cutting down on my processed foods. However, that does not do a damn thing to explain why the bulk of our markets rely on them as "convenience" foods to be sold to an unsuspecting public.or food industry make them to be consumed by the public.
But, I am sure you will miss the point for your usual 'purposes.'
Furthermore, one can be forgiven for asking this: If our store shelves had to rely on whole foods without the substances needed to extend shelf life how many store bought food choice items would be on display.
Why are our food manufacturers 'doing' bad and controversial food items in the FIRST PLACE? How is selling and 'buyer beware' a sport for the citizens who are not in on and never asked to be a part of the game?
I won't call on industry to do the work of consumers nor am I interested in a nanny state so that people who make poor choices can absolve themselves of responsibility for those choices.
companies sell what folks buy. don't like it don't buy it!
Your comment speaks volumes. You give industry a pass for being a seller of bad $hit to the public (where you and I live). It did not escape my notice that the question I asked at 5.1.56 of you and Drinker of the Wry (in red and bold coloring) you did not choose to rush to answer, if you do at all!
Why is that?
It stirs up a question and a concern of what good are you here to share or do you simply come here to stir up and ply a negative narrative/agenda.
I am under no obligation to answer every one of your questions and the sooner you get that the better.
if companies are doing something illegal then punish them otherwise you are just looking for an out for people not being personally responsible.
Yeah, "speaks volumes." You have no validity with me, Texan1211. And I will do my best to NOT ask you for your advice this entire year until I see definite signs of improvement!
imagine if you will my shock and concern over you dissing me.
Yeah, big pharma promoted oxy as a miracle drug for pain and singlehandedly created the pill/heroin/fentanyl epidemic we are facing today, excuse me if I tell them to fuck off for anything that isn't immediately life threatening.
The miracle drug isn't going to replace a healthy life style. Stop looking for a single pill cure, take responsibility for your poor choices and lack of concern for your own mind and body.
I went in to see a doctor about an injury, he was an absolute slob, i asked for a different doctor. If you don't care about your health, you certainly aren't in a position to treat mine.
This article does not indicate any point of calling it a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. What it does do is give people a boost towards that lifestyle. Proper doctors, will not prescribe any of these new weight loss pills without the patient showing an intent towards better eating and exercise. Yes, I know, some doctors will.
Many people gain weight for medical reasons, depression, age, or injuries. They find themselves stuck in a hole and are unable to get themselves out. Most cannot afford personal trainers, or even healthclub costs. Many fail to lose the weight when they see how slowly it comes off and are unable to remain on restrictive diets for long term.
If a drug can help boost them on the way, people standing around telling them their lazy is not going to help them lose weight and improve their health, and it may even prevent them from seeking their doctor's help.
Agreed. Indeed, people have been telling obese people about their obesity since time immemorial and doing so has not fixed many of those waistlines. There is a cause behind people getting obese: it's what is ingested. And that can be better done by the FOOD industry which over-engineers to our detriment their 'servings,' in my opinion.
Not to belabor the point or draw anybody into an ongoing dispute (above). But, I agree with your assessment. And, I provide why I do so.
Yes, and you can start blaming the food industry JUST as soon as the industry holds someone down and force feeds them.
If people actually ate the recommended serving size (also found on almost all products) they would have better results.
I will provide you an example of consumer gluttony.
I used to work at a place that had all you can eat on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for the regular menu price of the dinner.
You know what the go-to response was if someone didn't want the all you can eat?
"Oh, I can't eat that much!" In other words, stuffing their faces to feel they got "their money's worth".
Portions are large because consumers demand them to be that way.
This is not a good example of why a 'miracle pill' for weight loss is being created. People eat at al you can eat outfits/occasions because everyone in a while (hopefully) they get the opportunity to have an 'insane' variety of foods laid out before them at a respectable (not outrageous!) price. In that regard it is a FIVE STAR EVENT.
Problems can arise ("Uh-oh!) when the customer/family repeatedly and often crosses the threshold of such establishments; thus increasing with each entry his/her chances of 'packing on unhealthy and unneeded pounds.'
That is treating oneself/family to a 'gluttonous' occasion is not a dangerous undertaking! Think of it this way: All you can eat-treat is temporary and transient weight-obesity is permanent weight-bearing indefinitely.
I provided several videos ↑ which denote the state of play in the food industry. It is a fact, the public can not eat unhealthy foods found in their market shelves, if the food industry stop making, packaging, and shipping such foods (for profit)! Yes, the public has a need for convenience (gathering food daily is hard); yes, the public wants and enjoys variety, yes, many of us can discipline our eating habits (for life); yes, for those caught in the web of bad food EXCESSES-well if discipline eating habits can not be formed—now SCIENCE has come to save. . .their. . . day!
Please argue something I have claimed.
You can continue to blame manufacturers of food and restaurants, but no one is forced to make bad decisions on what they ingest. They willingly choose to eat what they want and how much.
True and untrue. People eat what is 'provided' to them. Since, they have little interest in starting a farm or slaughterhouse with its upkeep requirements. And you can stop with your 'diagnosis' of people responsibility (alone). I am not obese, however at my largest size ever, as I aged I accepted that by middle-age I was probably okay and acceptable at 240 pounds, because foolishly I thought it was something routine/common/inherent to the aging process. I disavowed myself of that notion and stopped carrying "with pride" those pounds by deciding to drop down to 220 pounds on my own-once I realized that taking a drug METFORMIN 'immediately' lost me 20 more pounds due to pre-diabetics, I discovered that high--fiber oatmeal 10 grams or more dropped me down to 200. And lo and behold I have not been on Metformin (my doctor advised me to stop) for about 1 1/2 to 2 years now and my daily testing (still do): Average: 97.
So yes, people can do this. However, I leave a great many foodstuffs (and nearly all sweets now) out of my diet. So what is the point I am making?
People should not have to take the long, circuitous, trek through the danger zones of unhealthy eating to burst out the other side as I and many others do. Society should do its part to insist that food safety, quality, and above all wholesomeness is the business 'day one' for us from infancy to old age.
Then no miracle weight-loss pill would be needed to develop.
And then, . . . science can get on to the business of finding a pill/cure for male pattern hair baldness!
It is a fact that they would stop selling those items IF people stopped buying them.
So because a company offers something with 1200 calories per serving and also provides one with 600 calories, who is supposed to make the choice?
The companies will make what sells, as evidenced by the plethora of low sodium, fat-free, low-fat, keto- and Atkins-diet products on the shelves. I have seen many gluten-free items available also. Pretending people aren't responsible is silly.
You're digressing. We have already discussed the 'how' of people getting themselves into the mess! Just being stubbornly, heartless, refusing to empathize, won't have any effect on obese people, Texan1211.
It is ignorance of understanding food and what is done to it that is 'killing' us. The food industry has the proper data and access to it.
For instance, when I took to heart that my colonoscopy 2x was coming back with diverticulitis (dry/folded areas in my colon) I was told to fix it with high-fiber (6 grams or above) products. Now then one could ask why in the world, all things being equal in cost, taste, and cooking time, why is the food industry selling products with a measly one to three grams of fiber?
Why is the industry doing this to its customers? It is not because of cost, because high fiber products are similar in cost to the low fiber products. But, the public does not understand/know why it should be choose high fiber products so it reaches for the first (advertised/promoted) product on the store shelves.
Indeed, I only know about high fiber branded products (made by the same people who make the 'regular' product) because a doctor told me about it. It was in the stores, people like me did not know its value for being there.
Rhetorical. We should not have to get sick by eating low-grade/quality foods when the healthy stuff is within reach but is under promoted by the industry!
Don't be ridiculous. I am all for giving people the tools to make informed decisions and to giving them choices, while you seem to want to limit the choices.
Empathizing with obese people doesn't make them less obese.
So you were deliberately ignoring products already on the shelves and are now criticizing the food industry for your ignorance.
Looks like you magically "found" all sorts of info now that you have been told by a doctor to look for certain things, all things told by tv doctors daily.
Make better choices, as it seems you have been doing. Was the info hard to obtain? Do products have labels?
I have already stated people/individuals are ultimately responsible for their outcomes. You're digressing again (and it is "silly" to so). Do not do that. It is not the point right now since we accept people should do better (somehow)!
Industry has a responsibility to make food of high quality and highest standards for those who pay them for it. More to the point, the food industry should not be the 'vehicle' for why people otherwise healthy; become obese, sedentary, and on pill regimens for a multiplicity of ailments/leading to death. Many corporations are taking 'short-cuts' and sending out lobbyists to talk up lesser quality and questionable food offerings to the public in the halls of state and national legislatures. (But that is beyond the scope of this discussion.)
Toxic, unhealthy offerings are not worthy choices. You should agree with that! Freedom and liberty can be 'over-rated' when health and wellness overall is the issuse and I, you, we should not do that!
OBSERVATION: In your last two comments you are escalating the tension between us by dropping negative and superfluous terms (silly/ridiculous) into your comments. Don't do that. It's "unhealthy'!
And it does. Whether people choose to buy the product is on them. You yourself claim to have better outcomes because you changed your diet. Others can do the same.
yeah, I am just not interested in making diet decisions for others. I will leave that to the nanny-staters.
Don't want it, don't choose it. Simple.
Well, with respect, I thank you for your time spent discussing this. I am going to wind down/stop now.