ArsT: “Outrageously” priced weight-loss drugs could bankrupt US health care

[tshile]

23 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said:

cease all T.V. advertising

Was watching one the other day and thought to myself - why are they allowed to do this?

 

your doctor should be the one pitching medication to you, as needed. 
 

people googling medical advise and using commercials to demand things from their doctors is ass backwards. 
 

the difficult part of it is that not all doctors are awesome. Blindly trusting whatever doctor is in front of you isn’t a great idea either. 

Add:

@PeterMPtotally understand what you’re saying, you alluded to it earlier and I got it then. It’s complicated and I don’t mean to paint with a broad brush. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

lol what?

you realize your taste buds change as your grow?

This seems like an incredible hand waving leap you’ve made here

 

id also like to point out that not liking foods and understanding what you need to eat to be healthy is a core concept of being an adult. We do (… or at least we should…) lots of things we “don’t like” because we have to. If you’re an adult refusing to eat healthy foods cause you didn’t like them as a child then you’re a lost cause anyways. 

 

"While a child may eat a little more when being coerced, the act of being pressured into eating can lead to the development of negative associations with the food, and ultimately dislike and avoidance. It can also stop children from recognising and responding appropriately to internal signals of hunger and fullness, which can make them more likely to overeat in later life."

 

https://www.childfeedingguide.co.uk/tips/common-feeding-pitfalls/pressure-eat/

 

A reminder: the comment I responded to was that simply having your kids eat healthier foods when they're very young will lead to them eating them when they're older. That comment left out just a ****load of realities that negate that belief.

 

 

[Renegade7]

58 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said:

 

My biggest issues with Big Pharma:

 

Entirely too much influence and control over a medical doctor's education and practice

End the public subsidies and cease all T.V. advertising and tax gifts - all while fleecing Americans with the highest drug costs in the world

Too much indemnity and that also needs to end

 

 

UK bans Pharma and Political advertising...its not unheard of...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Relatively cheap.  My point was never that there weren't some people that it would be an issue for.  I conceded at the end of the post, that for some people it is an issue, but it isn't the majority of people.

 

"There are people where that's true.  But it is the minority of Americans."

 

Calories aren't the only determining factor, but they are an important part of it.  I already mentioned things like things in food.

 

People eating hot dogs and raman soup because that's what they can afford is not the majority of the problem. 

 

The larger problem is that we lead the world in drinking sugary drinks.  We lead the world in eating fast food. Those aren't time/money issues.  If you are spending money on sugar beverages and fastfood, you can likely afford to eat a healthy.  Maybe not organics, berries and salmon healthy but apples, celery, carrots, nuts, frozen veggies, and beans healthy.

 

And yes, the cheapness of eating processed food and the things in the process food are an issue.  But eating less does make it less likely you will be obese and actually saves money that can be put into eating healthy.  The average American eats nearly 4,000 calories a day.  That should be much lower and if it is much lower that's less money spent on food that could be used to eat healthier.  That isn't a time or money thing.  The extra calories are actually extra money.  So if your argument is people are over eating because they are eating processed food because it is cheaper, the solution is relatively simple.  Eat less process food and more healthy food (or supplements that give them nutrients that will probably make them healthier and help control their appetite) and spend about the same or even less. 

 

Anybody that is spending money on processed food to save money to eat 4,000 calories a day and ends up obese isn't actually saving themselves money.  They are costing themselves money.  The issue isn't their time or money.  It is their decision making.  The person eating 2 hotdogs and a raman soup regularly for a meal that thinks they are saving money is wrong.  They've over eaten, spent more money on food then they had to, and made a bad decision.  They didn't save themselves time or money.  Their problem is education/decision making. 

 

(I will point out that I selected multivitamins and fiber supplements for a reason.  There is evidence both can help control appetites and fiber (even as a supplement) in some cases appears to level out glycemic load and is good for your microbiome.  Part of your argument appears to be that processed foods leave you feeling hungry and so people over eat them.  The answer to that is then to spend less on processed foods and spend money on other things that will balance that out, end up eating less, and saving money.  A multivitamin and fiber supplement are cheap things that appear as if they will help that are readily available at places many people buy food.  High fiber vegetables would also be good.)

 

A few things:

 

- It seems like you're of the belief that a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source. So reducing calories will lead to people not becoming obese. Unfortunately that's not true, other than in extreme scenarios (like eating 200 calories a day or some **** lol). The whole Keto diet thing is centered around removing types of foods from your diet, not calories from your diet. So eating unhealthy meals in smaller portions doesn't really address the root of obesity. If you eat 2 Ramen noodle meals a day instead of three, you're still overloading your system with sodium and all types of bad **** that is still bad **** even if you reduce your intake. For the record, this is specifically for the ultra cheap ramen noodles, could be healthier versions out there. And I'm only using Ramen noodles as a way of making my point lol...I'm not actually trying to say anything about ramen noodles per se.

 

- You don't have to eat 4,000 calories of processed foods to lead to obesity. It's what the food contains, not the calories. 1 salmon fillet has about the same amount of calories as eating 5-6 Pop Tarts. But you eat 5-6 Pop Tarts as a meal it's gonna lead you down the obesity path as where that salmon fillet will just taste good and be good for your body. And cutting back to 4 Pop Tarts for a meal won't really do much lol (figured I'd get off ramen noodles). However, one salmon fillet can be 5 to 10 times more expensive than 6 Pop Tarts.

 

- Nope, no part of my argument was saying eating processed foods can leave you feeling hungry. My argument is simple:

 

1) that eating healthy can be a challenge for a LOT of people due to the cost of eating healthy

 

2) that number one on most people's Food Priorities List is making sure they have enough food to last them (and their family), which I guess points to that "food insecurity" issue brought up earlier...people will indeed eat an unhealthy diet it if guarantees they'll have food to eat until the next paycheck--and 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

 

3) that saying "just eat less" or "just eat healthier" ignores way too much reality to be a workable solution.

 

4) that processed foods are FAR more affordable to everyone, and that processed foods tend to play a huge factor in obesity.

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

"While a child may eat a little more when being coerced, the act of being pressured into eating can lead to the development of negative associations with the food, and ultimately dislike and avoidance. It can also stop children from recognising and responding appropriately to internal signals of hunger and fullness, which can make them more likely to overeat in later life."

 

https://www.childfeedingguide.co.uk/tips/common-feeding-pitfalls/pressure-eat/

 

A reminder: the comment I responded to was that simply having your kids eat healthier foods when they're very young will lead to them eating them when they're older. That comment left out just a ****load of realities that negate that belief.

 

 

 

Coercion isn't necessarily the answer.  And I (nor tshile) mentioned coercion of children, so I'm not sure why you'd go to a study on coercion.  It is clear that introducing kids to eating healthy earlier is better and likely results in them eating healthy into adulthood.  Simply having more fruits and vegetables on the plate repeatedly helps.

 

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/filling-half-kids-plates-fruits-and-veggies-helps-increase-consumption/

 

(Also, things like the parent eating them too.  And I've got no problem with the idea that it helps if the mom eats them prenatally too.)

 

[DCSaints_fan]

The basic problem is that food is delicious.  For alot of people its hard to stop themselves from eating, if food is available. 

 

I have a bad habit of eating whatever's in front of me.  The only solution for me is to just not be in places where appetizing food is available.  My body just has no "stop eating" switch, if the food is appetizing. Generally sugar/carby foods.  High protein / high fiber meals I control a little better.  To me it would be like being surrounded by supermodels who are DTF, and having no short term consequences from partaking 🙂

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Coercion isn't necessarily the answer.  And I (nor tshile) mentioned coercion of children, so I'm not sure why you'd go to a study on coercion.  It is clear that introducing kids to eating healthy earlier is better and likely results in them eating healthy into adulthood.  Simply having more fruits and vegetables on the plate repeatedly helps.

 

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/filling-half-kids-plates-fruits-and-veggies-helps-increase-consumption/

 

(Also, things like the parent eating them too.  And I've got no problem with the idea that it helps if the mom eats them prenatally too.)

 

 

tshile responded specifically to my mentioning making kids eat foods that they don't like, though.So a study on coercion would be highly appropriate to back up my original comment.

[DCSaints_fan]

12 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

A few things:

 

 

- You don't have to eat 4,000 calories of processed foods to lead to obesity. It's what the food contains, not the calories. 1 salmon fillet has about the same amount of calories as eating 5-6 Pop Tarts. But you eat 5-6 Pop Tarts as a meal it's gonna lead you down the obesity path as where that salmon fillet will just taste good and be good for your body. And cutting back to 4 Pop Tarts for a meal won't really do much lol (figured I'd get off ramen noodles). However, one salmon fillet can be 5 to 10 times more expensive than 6 Pop Tarts.

The real issue is that 4 pop-tart meal compared to the salmon filet is the salmon filet should keep you satiated for longer.  Whereas with the 4-pop tarts, you're going to get hungrier again quicker.

 

There have been tons of studies that back up the premise, in terms of fat loss/gain, at least, a calorie is a calorie.  So if say, your calorie balance at maintenance is 2500, you will maintain depending on where those calories come from.  Besides some rather marginal factors with absorption.    Of course to preserve or gain muscle you will need adequate protein.  And the scale isn't a great measure in the short term because water weight varies by a lot.  I can lose 6-7 pounds in water if I do 1.5 hours on the elliptical.  Thats not fat loss.

Edited May 20 by DCSaints_fan

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

A few things:

 

- It seems like you're of the belief that a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source. So reducing calories will lead to people not becoming obese. Unfortunately that's not true, other than in extreme scenarios (like eating 200 calories a day or some **** lol). The whole Keto diet thing is centered around removing types of foods from your diet, not calories from your diet. So eating unhealthy meals in smaller portions doesn't really address the root of obesity. If you eat 2 Ramen noodle meals a day instead of three, you're still overloading your system with sodium and all types of bad **** that is still bad **** even if you reduce your intake. For the record, this is specifically for the ultra cheap ramen noodles, could be healthier versions out there. And I'm only using Ramen noodles as a way of making my point lol...I'm not actually trying to say anything about ramen noodles per se.

 

- You don't have to eat 4,000 calories of processed foods to lead to obesity. It's what the food contains, not the calories. 1 salmon fillet has about the same amount of calories as eating 5-6 Pop Tarts. But you eat 5-6 Pop Tarts as a meal it's gonna lead you down the obesity path as where that salmon fillet will just taste good and be good for your body. And cutting back to 4 Pop Tarts for a meal won't really do much lol (figured I'd get off ramen noodles). However, one salmon fillet can be 5 to 10 times more expensive than 6 Pop Tarts.

 

I'm not a believer that a calorie is a calorie.  I think that's pretty clear in the context of talking about metabolic reprogramming that can happen and talking about using fiber supplements to even out glycemic loads.

 

But there's no science that supports the idea that if you have a person that is eating 6 poptarts a day and they cut back to 4 (without replacing those calories with something else), that they won't be less likely to gain weight (or lose more weight).  A calorie of fat is not the same as a calorie of a protein isn't a calorie of carbohydrates.  But there's no science that says all other things staying the same that reducing the calories of what would be the same carbohydrate (pop tart carbohydrates) won't impact weight.

 

I'm also not talking about just bad stuff (e.g. salt in the ramen soup or the nitrates in the hot dog).  I'm specifically talking about obesity.  Going from 2 hot dogs to 1 hot dog might not impact your risks of nitrate/processed meat associated cancer to any measurable level, but that's not the point I'm making.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

And by the way...

 

5 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Relatively cheap. 

 

 

Did you define this yet? lol...I may have missed it if you did. Relatively cheap...relative to what?

 

Because if "relatively cheap" is a usable term in this discussion, then so is "relatively expensive." I abso-stinkin-lutely guarantee you that damn near all healthy food you deem as "relatively cheap" will validly be deemed "relatively expensive" to a wide swath of the public. It's a someone objective term that has a somewhat subjective definition, mainly because of the word "relative"...are apples "relatively cheap" compared to strawberries? Yes. Are apples "relatively cheap" compared to ramen noodles? No. That nuts/apples/peas meal you described earlier is "relatively expensive" when compared to a meal of ramen noodles and hot dogs.

 

 

8 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

The real issue is that 4 pop-tart meal compared to the salmon filet is the salmon filet should keep you satiated for longer.  Whereas with the 4-pop tarts, you're going to get hungrier again quicker.

 

No, the real issue is that the 4 Pop-Tart meal costs $1.25 as where the salmon fillet meal cost $12.

 

Edited May 20 by Califan007 The Constipated

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

And by the way...

 

 

 

Did you define this yet? lol...I may have missed it if you did. Relatively cheap...relative to what?

 

Because if "relatively cheap" is a usable term in this discussion, then so is "relatively expensive." I abso-stinkin-lutely guarantee you that damn near all healthy food you deem as "relatively cheap" will validly be deemed "relatively expensive" to a wide swath of the public. It's a someone objective term that has a somewhat subjective definition, mainly because of the word "relative"...are apples "relatively cheap" compared to strawberries? Yes. Are apples "relatively cheap" compared to ramen noodles? No. That nuts/apples/peas meal you described earlier is "relatively expensive" when compared to a meal of ramen noodles and hot dogs.

 

Relatively cheaply compared to what people generally spend on food in the US.

 

(The average American family spends over $6000 a month.  Let's say 4 people per the average American family (that's an over estimate).  You put my meal at $7.74, and I'm a large adult male so at the upper end of what people should be taking in terms of calories (so that's an overestimate).  We'll say 3 meals a day.  We'll say 31 days in a month (so again we'll say the extreme).

 

That's $2,879.28 a month.  That's well below what the average American family spends on food a month.  Compared to what most Americans spend on food a month, it is a cheap meal.  (And again, that's with things biased to be high in terms of calories in taken and the size of the average family).

 

The vast majority of Americans could eat that version of healthy and cut their food costs.

Edited May 20 by PeterMP

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not a believer that a calorie is a calorie.  I think that's pretty clear in the context of talking about metabolic reprogramming that can happen and talking about using fiber supplements to even out glycemic loads.

 

But there's no science that supports the idea that if you have a person that is eating 6 poptarts a day and they cut back to 4 (without replacing those calories with something else), that they won't be less likely to gain weight (or lose more weight).  A calorie of fat is not the same as a calorie of a protein isn't a calorie of carbohydrates.  But there's no science that says all other things staying the same that reducing the calories of what would be the same carbohydrate (pop tart carbohydrates) won't impact weight.

 

I'm also not talking about just bad stuff (e.g. salt in the ramen soup or the nitrates in the hot dog).  I'm specifically talking about obesity.  Going from 2 hot dogs to 1 hot dog might not impact your risks of nitrate/processed meat associated cancer to any measurable level, but that's not the point I'm making.

 

There is always a cut-off point where eating unhealthy/bad food starts to affect our bodies negatively for the long haul.

 

So, eating 6 pop tarts a day as meals could lead me to gaining 40 lbs over the next year, as where cutting it down to 4 pop tarts a day I'll only gain 30 lbs lol...either way, you're gaining too much weight, as well as ****ing up your body in numerous other ways from that unhealthy diet.

[PeterMP]

29 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

tshile responded specifically to my mentioning making kids eat foods that they don't like, though.So a study on coercion would be highly appropriate to back up my original comment.

 

Actually he didn't.  He talked about adults doing things that they don't like and eating things they didn't like as kids.  Adults do things they don't like.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Relatively cheaply compared to what people generally spend on food in the US.

 

 

No offense, but that's a terrible definition. The cost of individual items compared to the total amount spent on all items is not a good way of defining "relatively cheap."

 

And what effin' family is spending $6,000 a month on food?!?!?!?! lol...

 

According to the Census Bureau, the average U.S. family spends $1,000 a month on groceries.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/01/20/average-grocery-cost-per-week-us-states/72260684007/

 

According to the USDA, the average family spends between $600-$1200 a month.

https://jow.com/guide/category/saving-on-groceries-c-5SCg/how-much-is-the-average-weekly-grocery-bill-for-a-family-of-4-q-p6Wb4k

 

Where are you getting the $6,000/month figure from?

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

24 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

No, the real issue is that the 4 Pop-Tart meal costs $1.25 as where the salmon fillet meal cost $12.

 

A can of tuna or a few eggs also cost $1.25 and people are still going to choose the Pop-Tarts.

[SkinsFTW]

4 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

A can of tuna or a few eggs also cost $1.25 and people are still going to choose the Pop-Tarts.

 

I can't believe that most people think that Pop Tarts taste good. No wonder I have never been overweight.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Actually he didn't.  He talked about adults doing things that they don't like and eating things they didn't like as kids.  Adults do things they don't like.

 

Actually he did.

 

Me: "And if you try and make it mandatory that they eat their apples/bananas/whatever, they are more likely to grow up hating those foods."

Him: "lol what? you realize your taste buds change as you grow? This seems like an incredible hand waving leap you’ve made here"

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

[China]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

UK bans Pharma and Political advertising...its not unheard of...

 

You guys must be young.  We didn't always have all the media saturation of Pharma ads.  They never used to be on TV.  In fact, the first TV ad for pharmaceuticals didn't happen until 1983.  You can thank the Pharma Lobby for all the ads everywhere now.

[Chump Bailey]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Was watching one the other day and thought to myself - why are they allowed to do this?

 

It used to be illegal back in the day as were stock buybacks. Oddly enough - it's just the U.S. & New Zealand that allow drug companies to directly advertise like this.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

A can of tuna or a few eggs also cost $1.25 and people are still going to choose the Pop-Tarts.

 

That's a problem of our convenience culture as well. Eggs aren't quite as convenient unless you eat them raw. A can of tuna definitely is convenient if you're eating it right out of the can and not as part of a sammich or salad or something. It's like french fries and broccoli, though...fries cost more than broccoli but people (at least in the U.S.) will spend more to eat the fries than eat broccoli. I used to be one of those people lol...now I almost never eat fries and stock up on all sorts of broccoli, even eat it as a meal.

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, China said:

 

You guys must be young.  We didn't always have all the media saturation of Pharma ads.  They never used to be on TV.  In fact, the first TV ad for pharmaceuticals didn't happen until 1983.  You can thank the Pharma Lobby for all the ads everywhere now.

 

I believe it.

 

Born in 88.

 

Or as kids call it these days "Late 1900s" 😒

 

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

And what effin' family is spending $6,000 a month on food?!?!?!?! lol...

I think the 6000/month is just total expenses not just food. 

[PeterMP]

56 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

No offense, but that's a terrible definition. The cost of individual items compared to the total amount spent on all items is not a good way of defining "relatively cheap."

 

And what effin' family is spending $6,000 a month on food?!?!?!?! lol...

 

According to the Census Bureau, the average U.S. family spends $1,000 a month on groceries.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/01/20/average-grocery-cost-per-week-us-states/72260684007/

 

According to the USDA, the average family spends between $600-$1200 a month.

https://jow.com/guide/category/saving-on-groceries-c-5SCg/how-much-is-the-average-weekly-grocery-bill-for-a-family-of-4-q-p6Wb4k

 

Where are you getting the $6,000/month figure from?

 

 

 

I'm not seeing it now.  Pulled if off a web page.  Though it does seem like I must have messed it up.  But groceries aren't getting the whole picture either, because it excludes people eating out.  Even basic fastfood isn't going to be included in that.  In a society where many people eat out often and that's partly a contributor to obesity, the grocery bill isn't capturing the full picture.  I did also mess up the math before.  You'd already taken into account a family of 3 so I've got an extra multiplication in there so (and certainly $7.74 to feed a family of 3 is better than you are getting eating out today even eating out at fastfood).

 

Though I don't understand why that's an awful comparison.  What people could spend on something that is relatively healthy vs. their actual total spending seems like a reasonable comparison.

 

Why don't you tell me what you think we should compare things to and we'll go from there?

 

What would be a reasonable costs or a relatively cheap costs for most Americans to eat healthy and why that number?

Edited May 20 by PeterMP

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, China said:

 

You guys must be young.  We didn't always have all the media saturation of Pharma ads.  They never used to be on TV.  In fact, the first TV ad for pharmaceuticals didn't happen until 1983.  You can thank the Pharma Lobby for all the ads everywhere now.

I was born after 1983 so, I wouldn’t know if this ancient time where they didn’t advertise 

 

😉

[PeterMP]

There is some evidence that drug ads are actually in totality beneficial.

 

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-hidden-benefits-of-tv-drug-ads1