Is this going to open a floodgate - weight loss jabs for unemployed

Yes!
Sausage and mash ready meal £2. Microwave and fork needed.
Sausages £2, potatoes £1.50, peas £1. Need grill/ frying pan/ air fryer for sausages, saucepan and masher (maybe a dash of milk and butter and a colander) for the mashed potatoes and another saucepan for the peas.

Well if you're going to cost it out, you need to do it per portion

Are you talking about one person?

A whole pack of sausages isnt going to be consumed in that meal, neither is a whole pack of potatoes. A portion of peas needs to be calculated.

Or is the ready meal to serve several people? You need to compare like with like, so same amount of size portion and preferably work it out calorie wise too.

It's not happening. Technically, the ESA regulations say it could happen but the DWP would have to prove that the refusal was unreasonable. Concern over side effects for example would be reasonable. Also, the human rights act around bodily autonomy would come into play. The same reason why people aren't forced to have vaccinations for example.

I'm not aware of any test case where this has happened in the UK but happy to be corrected.

But NONE of this has been suggested at all - lazy fat benefit claimants getting free jabs or being forced to, it literally isn't being suggested but the media have put their spin on it and some MNetters are histrionic over something that they've imagined.

It does seem like a vicious circle of money making - processed food causes illnesses, but instead of addressing that big pharma create drugs to treat one of the symptoms (obesity), leaving the other issues like cancer to continue. We have to get people eating real food again or we aren't going to fix this problem (but big companies will continue to profit from ill health).

Yes, it is almost as if there is a connection between the food manufacturers, and the big pharma. Make people sick, and then provide costly solutions. The Government has a lot to answer for the way that food has been allowed to be messed with.

I have a few issue with this.

1. Obesity is multifactoral and closely linked to deprivation. You can get rid of the obesity with these jabs which will improve people's health and mobility but does it make them more employable? Is part of the reason they were obese because they were trapped in low paid jobs or unable to get one due to lack of skills/education? Is this part going to be addressed?

1. There are many obese people in work - including in the NHS. It would be nice to see those in work actually given access to these jabs to keep them in work and healthy and then it would be an incentive to get a job that facilitated access to this level of healthcare.

3.Thousands of people are currently eligible for these jabs on the NHS due to BMI and related diseases. I believe only hundreds have been actually started on them - is this due to capacity? Do we have the ability to assess, monitor and prescribe these medications in a continuous way?

4.Are we doing this forever? What happens when it stops?

But if you have got £2 you have to choose to buy something that costs £2, not buy in advance and plan ahead. I’ve always got potatoes and peas in already, I could spend my £2 on the sausages and either feed more people or put the rest of the pack in the freezer (which I also have and can afford to run) but if you’re living in poverty, in temporary accommodation, you probably haven’t got this choice.

Yes I get that, but if we are simply comparing cost of meal, to cost of meal, thats the calculation needed.

These are the other variables that come into it adding complexity but someone, cant remember who was saying that a ready meal is more expensive, others saying no its not, no one can make either claim unless its costed out fully

And of course thats just one meal example, a lasagne, curry, moussaka, fish and chip meal, etc etc, they will all have their own costings and complications.

Absolutely @soupfiend the reality for people living in poverty is that they can’t afford to choose the cheaper option.

You’re defining a smallish group of people who are living in absolute poverty.

A fridge, a freezer compartment, a cupboard and a stove are hardly unusual.

And why only look at savoury food? It’s an awful lot cheaper to eat fruit than pre-packaged desserts and confectionery.

Yes its the cheaper option on the day you have 2 quid in your pocket, but its not the cheaper option overall

(in the case of sausage and mash for one person)

Have I missed something? The media appears to have framed this as about the unemployed or selling out to big pharma, when actually it's about a small trial of weight loss drugs with Eli Lilly. Is that a bad thing?
Disclaimer: I don't know enough about weight loss drugs to have much of an opionion either way. I am not on them and unlikely to be on them.

I think you have nailed it. It is a trial with Eli Lilly. As such it will have to go via ethics committees etc. They may even target NHS staff as these people will be better able to give informed consent, plus there is a large HR department to work out sick leave etc.

What the press is up to is anyone's guess. Same goes for politicians.

Makes you wonder what the agenda is

This is such a dangerous path to go down.

If there is no effort or work involved in losing weight, there is no incentive to keep the work you have achieved. 99% of people who take these jabs will gain it back as soon as they stop, but with the unknown side effects of these jabs on insulin/thyroid etc

You have to work hard for things that aren’t easy to maintain, and retrain your mind on food and exercise.

As for this antiquated government with its silly policies..

They might want to look at education and the biggest factor, people having access to cheap affordable fruits, vegetables and real food. People having access to affordable sports and exercise facilities.

Instead they inundate the population with aspartame, pills and now injections. In all, we’re cooked.

If there is no effort or work involved in losing weight, there is no incentive to keep the work you have achieved. 99% of people who take these jabs will gain it back as soon as they stop, but with the unknown side effects of these jabs on insulin/thyroid etc

There is effort involved, even with the drugs. They don't lose the weight for you. They rebalance things like insulin resistence and therefore, bring greater balance to leptin and ghrelin.

85% will gain it back. Not 99%. Still not great statistics but if your obesity is caused by hormonal inbalances then, yes, you need to keep taking the medication to keep those hormones in balance. Weight loss itself has long term (not great) effects on some of the hormones we are talking about. It's not as simple as 'you've done the work now just need to maintain it'. Sadly. But that's the same for lots of medications used to treat chronic problems.

I suspect the government is hoping to replicate the same impact the US has seen - in which obesity, for the first time in decades, is on the decline...

This shows you (and other posters like you) do not understand how they work - their impact on insulin IS known, that is HOW they work. They control the out of whack insulin response to carbohydrates that many men and women experience - they may be pre-diabetic, have a genetic predisposition to diabetes that means insulin is resistant to carbs, they may have PCOS, hypothyroidism (these two present together in over 70% of incidences), be menopausal.. and so on. ALL of these things are endocrinological dysfunctions that mean that the over simplified calories in/calories expended model is inaccurate and that diet/excercise alone to not work. Note the use of ALONE. People using these medications have dieted/exercised just like successful dieters, often over decades. And for many it worked for a big chunk of that time. Until one day it does not because … menopause, PCOS, Hypothyroidism etc changes in the way it impacts the body as you age.

Thyroid cancer was seen in one rat study, hence the precaution of not prescribing to individuals who have a family history of thyroid cancer. My family has a history of hypothyroidism - all my sisters and I have it, along with PCOS; my 16yo son also has hypothyroidism; and we have all been prescribed Ozempic or mounjaro in the last year to not only find that the same agonising exercise regimes and diet programs that everyone else follows finally work again for us… oh, and our thyroid medication has been reduced (and we’ve come off diabetic medication for PCOS too).

Am sick of the ‘take the jab, the fat melts off and as soon as you stop taking it you’ll regain it’ narrative. A study of 22k ozempic users and 22k mounjaro users showed that 56% dieters kept all/most of the weight off after 12m, compared to 95% of traditional dieters who regained some or all their weight in the same period. In fact less than 26% regained all the weight, making it more than 3.5x more successful for long term weight loss and management. It is successful because it helps recalibrate insulin response long term and because you have to completely change your relationship with food/diet/your body in order to lose the weight and this remains after you titrate of it.

Just as anti depressant medication can be stopped and a return of symptoms avoided, if you do the counselling/lifestyle changes that support recovery, these medications are a tool, not a cure.

Surely the drug is depressing appetite, through the action of hormones?

If you stop taking the drug to depress the appetite and then go back to not controlling your calorie intake, you’ll get fat again.

@CautiousLurker

I understand this, they are a tool. But for most they won’t be used that way (human nature)

I know quite a bit about thyroid (hashimotos). I spent years working my butt off to lose 100lb+ and reverse insulin resistance.

We will only know the effects of these injections in 10+ years realistically.

@CautiousLurker your post is illuminating.

Suddenly there is a bewildering flood of information on these drugs and we need good science journalism to help us figure them out. Not sensationalist headlines.

No, it is not an appetite suppressant. It helps recalibrate the body’s response to insulin (which impacts whether we feel hungry or not, ie so the effect is that people feel their appetite is suppressed). At the moment it appears there are groups of people for whom this may be permanently dysfunctional (genetics, diabetics) for home remaining on these medications for life may be necessary. For others, trauma, depression etc may have lead to endocrinological disruption and/or unbalanced eating, esp if UPFs are main fare. For this group it is hoped that this response may be corrected by lifestyle changes. This, again, is like depression and the use of anti depressants where some people may need them permanently but most people can adapt lifestyle, mindset, undergo therapy and gradually wean off and life quite happily without them.

Eli Lily et al are conducting studies to try and identify more easily and quickly which of those two groups a person may fall into and how it impacts their response to those medications.

Surely the drug is depressing appetite, through the action of hormones?
If you stop taking the drug to depress the appetite and then go back to not controlling your calorie intake, you’ll get fat again.

The drug triggers GLP-1 receptors that are found all around the body, but esp the pancreas. They control insulin release and sensitivty. But triggering them, you increase insulin amounts and sensitivity and thus lower blood sugar. Lower BS means more stable BS and less sugar crashes, leading to less sugar cravings.

GLP-1 also controls digestion speed. By triggering them you slow down digestion so, you are fuller for longer. It also increases leptin levels. Leptin is what tells your brain you've eaten enough for your needs. This obviously depresses appetite.

The triggering of GLP-1 receptors also supresses ghrelin production - ghrelin controls hunger and so less of it = less hunger.

In short, it causes all of those hormones to go back to 'normal' levels. It corrects what genetics and a lifetime of weight gain and yo-yo dieting have done to wreck them. It is them being so wrecked that means it iss not just 'self control' but constant and impossible battle against your own biology which is pushing you with every tool it has to eat and eat and eat until you have more than regained any weight you've lost.

So, you are right in that when you stop taking it, IF your obesity was caused by the many things that interfere with those hormones, you are likely to still have a foundational hormonal problem which will resurface. People are likely to need long term help with this.

We also know a low carb diet is extremely effective in reversing insulin resistance, so why does the food pyramid still contain a majority of grains and simple carbohydrates?

Because it’s cheap nasty filler for the population. I believe we should combat this at source but I know pharmaceutical companies need their profits.

The drug licensing authorities say it’s an appetite depressant.

On the EMA’s information page it says:

“The active substance in Wegovy, semaglutide, is a ‘GLP-1 receptor agonist’. It acts in the same way as GLP-1 (a natural hormone in the body) and, among other things, appears to regulate appetite by increasing a person’s feelings of fullness, while reducing their food intake, hunger and cravings.”

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/wegovy#:~:text=How%20does%20Wegovy%20work%3F,food%20intake%2C%20hunger%20and%20cravings.

@CoverMeInMarmalade thank you - I ‘know’ the science when I read it, but couldn’t recall it in the correct detail to explain it above.