It seems the tables may be turning when it comes to consumer choices, as the very same companies responsible for the obesity epidemic are now considering better options.
Just a data point. Eating "unprocessed" and "only healthy" foods is NOT a guarantee of normal weight.
I am overweight (not obese), dieting for the last 20 years, and I know that if I did not limit how much I eat, I would weigh double my current weight just by eating as much of "healthy" and unprocessed foods.
I spent 8 years on low carb. Now I eat carbs, but not a lot.
I have not eaten junk food (candy, soda, cakes etc) in many years.
"It's the economy." Just as times past, snack foods weren't/aren't found in the house. In addition, the price of a semaglutide reduces other discretionary spending which will reverse when the Med is disconnected and appetites return. Eating correctly requires knowledge, discipline and adequate funds.
I am glad people have access to medication to help them to lose weight (and thus avoid other chronic illnesses), I've witnessed many around me whose lives have positively changed by these meds. What concerns me is the ability to access quality food, the existence of food deserts, the 'standard American diet' that is challenging to avoid (for many reasons) and/or an amount of unnecessary ingredients packed into foods (Ill pick one- sugar!) which skew our taste. I do hope this opens up a new path to healthier eating and lifestyle. thanks for writing this
Healthy options have always been available, but I think it’s more a cultural issue of unfortunate circumstances and inherent human propensity toward laziness and convenience. Ozempic (or any of what could be considered the “quick fix” of pharmacology) could be considered a path of convenience. The advent of cheap, processed foods would not have become the boom market it now is if it weren’t marketed to prey on this particular human weakness, and further would not have continued succeeding if it were not profitable--which means people have been choosing it. There are many who pursued whole food diets regardless, or even in spite, of the fad of convenience and trend, so I’m not sure the culprit diet was “forced” on anyone. When I was much younger and my family quite abjectly poorer, I remember that standing in line for a box of food from the Salvation Army was the highlight of whenever we were lucky enough to participate. The limited food in those boxes was healthier than any convenient and processed fast food. My mother purposefully sought whole foods as often as she could afford. Was it a lot of variety? Of course not. But it was cheaper and healthier than the convenient alternatives she was marketed to nonstop to purchase. She made decisions and choices, and they weren’t easy or convenient, but we were healthier because of it. What is rather baffling is once she started making more money, she reverted to convenience diets and her health suffered in consequence. I see this rather often with many mid-upper class people I know; they still eat veritable garbage, it just costs more, with more alcohol, and they can afford to use pharmacology to offset the side effects (PPI, statins, beta blockers, etc). It seems like these new weight loss drugs (like the old ones) are still simply treating a symptom of a sick society and culture, where the true cause is still unknown.
The shift in the market is not surprising when considering how interconnected all these players are (marketing ties all of them together). I can see this as a clever way to increase prices in many areas, citing “healthier” options as being more inherently expensive and thus the justification is made, and everyone not only accepts it, but now gets to feel like they’re in control of the supply because they’ve been told they created the demand, when in reality it’s probably Say’s law all along and we’re just being manipulated by all the same corporate entities that ultimately decide what happens to their markets. But then again, I’m quite cynical and often assume the worst motives. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was going to say something similar. I have long foregone most of the processed food in the world and have maintained healthy weight and pretty good health. I believe there are healthier options out there (I choose them often), but there just hasn’t been demand for them.
These companies are following demand and probably trying to further it (making junk food as addictive as possible). What’s changing now is the demand market and they are going to try to respond. I would be happy for me since I like these options, but I doubt their solutions will ACTUALLY be healthier given their track record.
The one area where I believe we are all unknowingly suffering is the toxic environment we’ve created with the use of chemicals. That’ll probably mess up your endocrine system something awful.
Just a data point. Eating "unprocessed" and "only healthy" foods is NOT a guarantee of normal weight.
I am overweight (not obese), dieting for the last 20 years, and I know that if I did not limit how much I eat, I would weigh double my current weight just by eating as much of "healthy" and unprocessed foods.
I spent 8 years on low carb. Now I eat carbs, but not a lot.
I have not eaten junk food (candy, soda, cakes etc) in many years.
I am also pre-diabetic.
"It's the economy." Just as times past, snack foods weren't/aren't found in the house. In addition, the price of a semaglutide reduces other discretionary spending which will reverse when the Med is disconnected and appetites return. Eating correctly requires knowledge, discipline and adequate funds.
I’m a pharmacist! It works.
I am glad people have access to medication to help them to lose weight (and thus avoid other chronic illnesses), I've witnessed many around me whose lives have positively changed by these meds. What concerns me is the ability to access quality food, the existence of food deserts, the 'standard American diet' that is challenging to avoid (for many reasons) and/or an amount of unnecessary ingredients packed into foods (Ill pick one- sugar!) which skew our taste. I do hope this opens up a new path to healthier eating and lifestyle. thanks for writing this
Healthy options have always been available, but I think it’s more a cultural issue of unfortunate circumstances and inherent human propensity toward laziness and convenience. Ozempic (or any of what could be considered the “quick fix” of pharmacology) could be considered a path of convenience. The advent of cheap, processed foods would not have become the boom market it now is if it weren’t marketed to prey on this particular human weakness, and further would not have continued succeeding if it were not profitable--which means people have been choosing it. There are many who pursued whole food diets regardless, or even in spite, of the fad of convenience and trend, so I’m not sure the culprit diet was “forced” on anyone. When I was much younger and my family quite abjectly poorer, I remember that standing in line for a box of food from the Salvation Army was the highlight of whenever we were lucky enough to participate. The limited food in those boxes was healthier than any convenient and processed fast food. My mother purposefully sought whole foods as often as she could afford. Was it a lot of variety? Of course not. But it was cheaper and healthier than the convenient alternatives she was marketed to nonstop to purchase. She made decisions and choices, and they weren’t easy or convenient, but we were healthier because of it. What is rather baffling is once she started making more money, she reverted to convenience diets and her health suffered in consequence. I see this rather often with many mid-upper class people I know; they still eat veritable garbage, it just costs more, with more alcohol, and they can afford to use pharmacology to offset the side effects (PPI, statins, beta blockers, etc). It seems like these new weight loss drugs (like the old ones) are still simply treating a symptom of a sick society and culture, where the true cause is still unknown.
The shift in the market is not surprising when considering how interconnected all these players are (marketing ties all of them together). I can see this as a clever way to increase prices in many areas, citing “healthier” options as being more inherently expensive and thus the justification is made, and everyone not only accepts it, but now gets to feel like they’re in control of the supply because they’ve been told they created the demand, when in reality it’s probably Say’s law all along and we’re just being manipulated by all the same corporate entities that ultimately decide what happens to their markets. But then again, I’m quite cynical and often assume the worst motives. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Modern processed "food" is addictive as heck, and full of crap that prevents you losing weight
I was going to say something similar. I have long foregone most of the processed food in the world and have maintained healthy weight and pretty good health. I believe there are healthier options out there (I choose them often), but there just hasn’t been demand for them.
These companies are following demand and probably trying to further it (making junk food as addictive as possible). What’s changing now is the demand market and they are going to try to respond. I would be happy for me since I like these options, but I doubt their solutions will ACTUALLY be healthier given their track record.
The one area where I believe we are all unknowingly suffering is the toxic environment we’ve created with the use of chemicals. That’ll probably mess up your endocrine system something awful.