People who think weight loss injections are cheating

[AuntieDote]

I've seen this viewpoint over multiple threads recently, and I'm just really curious to understand it a bit more because it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

What do you think people using the injections are cheating at?

As in - what's the competition and who are they gaining an unfair advantage over? What do you think the rules of being allowed to lose weight are/ should be?

Is it more important to you that overweight people/ those struggling with obesity lose the weight, become healthier, reduce the burden on the NHS, stop taking up more than their allocated amount of space in the world, or just stop doing whatever it is that upsets people so much about the existence of fat people -- or is it more important that they struggle and suffer whilst doing so?

Or would you secretly prefer them to remain fat so you can feel superior?

Is it that you feel you've worked really hard to either lose weight, keep it off or never put it on in the first place, so nobody else should be allowed to achieve this without the same amount of struggle?

What do you think the weight loss injections actually do, and do you not recognise that those on them are also doing all the usual things people who are trying to lose weight e.g. modify their eating, exercise etc? Does it not count that they're doing these things because it's made easier in some ways by the drug?

What types of weight loss support or tools are not 'cheating'? e.g. I used hypnosis once and it worked for a bit, to the point that I felt pretty much the same way I do with the injections i.e. reduction in food noise and compulsion to snack etc. It didn't last anything like as long, but it worked for a time - was that cheating?

Would it still be cheating if they weren't as effective as they are?

FWIW, I really couldn't care less if people think I'm cheating - who cares? Who does it impact only me and my bank balance? If someone said here, press this button and you'll be a healthy BMI overnight and stay there forever I'd press it with both hands and not give a shit about how anyone felt about it.

But it's just the logic of it that baffles me - I've never seen it as a competition and have never felt like getting to or being a healthy weight only counts if it's done in a certain way - I suppose I'm not much interested in what size anyone else is or what they do to get that way, so I can't imagine for a second ever thinking another person was 'cheating' - only ever being happy for them if they're happy and hopefully healthy too.

People are so threatened by any facts around these drugs, to the point they put their fingers in their ears and babble like little children to block the information out - it happens on every thread

You are not sharing “facts”. You are sharing propaganda. The person who isn’t listening is you

Erm... I hate to tell you this,but glp1s have been around for 20years already...

Absolutely not cheating and the options people choose and have available to them are their choice

@thesilvermoon
Historically, you are correct women of child baring age were excluded from clinical trials due to the risk of pregnancy. The use of female rodents to study disease was also ignored with females being considered males with hormones. This is something the scientific field has realised is conpltly wrong with funding bodies now forcing the inclusion of females in preclinical and clinical studies. The regulatory bodies also require the inclusion of both sexes unless you are talking about a sex specific drug.

You are wrong that the effects in pregnancy are not explored. Early clinical data shows that accidental exposure in the first trimester did not increase risk of deformities in the baby

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11043712/
To be clear it doesn't mean this drug should be used in pregnancy but limited accidental exposure is unlikely to be damaging.

In contrast the damage caused in pregnancy by exposure to alcohol, caffine and Ibuprofen are seen from the first trimester when women can be unaware of their pregnancy. If you apply the logic you have applied, women of childbaring ages would not be able to consume coffee, alcohol or take Ibuprofen on the small chance they may inadvertently become pregnant.

Yes but it's not just that simple and there are alot of other factors at play.

Calorie restriction is what is actually needed to reduce size rather then exercise.

What the exercise does is increase insulin sensitivity, increase the production of GLP1 and endorphins.

So essentially this drug is mimicking one aspect of the effects of exercise to allow individuals to move more and eat less. My point is it is not as easy as JUST eat less and move more. If it was we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic to begin with.

I do think as a society we need to adress what causes obesity starting at childhood. I think we need to tax the absolute fuck out of upf and make it unaffordable like smoking but this will be unpopular. Increase access to sports and fitness programs in youth and teens especially in deprived areas but this costs money.

Cheating may be used as a term by people who don’t get what the drug does.

I want to be honest and say that I don’t understand weight loss drugs, but if they are safe and you have exhausted all other options and you know what they are doing to your body - then fine.

I have had experience of the opposite though - I have seen people around me take weight gaining drugs and I see that a little like taking steroids. I know that people have an idea of how they want to look etc, but, My perceived judgment comes more from a stance of “I hope you aren’t harming yourself” - especially if a medical professional isn’t involved in the decision.

Just going to ignore all the reports that people using theses drugs were eating less and moving more for decades (and still gaining/not losing) and the only change they have made is adding these drugs… or the fact that, as they impact insulin production in response to how it metabolises that food, it is actually clinical and scientific evidence that ‘eat less and exercise more’ paradigm is a complete crock of shit an oversimplified, clinically outdated and largely incomplete theory on fat metabolism? I say that as someone who trained as a fitness instructor in a gym in my 20s and exercised hard all my life, even walking 8miles a day pushing 2 kids in a buggy for several ears in my 30s.

lol. I will go with the scientists and doctors sweetie, not the jealous and resentful on mumsnet. 😂

You site an opinion post from Australian News, but ignore actual information from a scientific journal that I posted in response?

Perhaps you are the one not listening or evaluating your sources, either that or you are scaremongering on purpose!

For ethical reasons drug testing isn’t done on women who are pregnant and women are not encouraged to loose a substantial amount of weight whilst pregnant.

If you take this medication you are advised not to get pregnant, or breastfeed. (As a precaution)

Birth defects can occur for lots of reasons, which is why for example you are encouraged to take folic acid before getting pregnant. Obviously unplanned pregnancies miss the window of opportunity for this to happen.

So here is some more facts for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK605070/

Despite checking around.. I can’t see any evidence to support your assertion that it causes birth defects! Actually an initial population study has been done, but more information is required to demonstrate its safety in pregnancy. There is a far higher bar for safety in pregnancy than you would think!

https://www.webmd.com/obesity/mounjaro-pregnancy

Lots of women who take this medication won’t be in the fertile window of life, those who are in the UK gave access to contraception that will work effectively while taking weight loss injections.

I can’t find any evidence from any reputable source (Scientific / Medical Journals) to support what you are saying, and I have looked into it in detail.

Women will be told that these drugs are not proven to be safe in pregnancy, prior to starting them. So it’s on them if they have a surprise pregnancy anyway.

Well, 5stone lost and almost 2 years on the drugs tells me otherwise.

I wonder if this is another one of those British Attitude things (or is it English Attitude).
Anyway, my friends and I have discussed this a lot, how in some countries everyone is cheering for the achievers while thinking 'Hey great, if they can do it, so can I!'
Whereas in England there is often the 'Look at them, who do they think they are' bitterness and jealousy.

We seem to have a culture here that is simply anti success - financial, career or health. If you earn enough to send your kids to private school, if you slim down from obese, if you win the lottery, if you can afford to treat your waster family, if you can afford a 1m house [just going by recent threads on MN]… then you deserve to be derided and mocked.

The poster you’re answering is rather uninformed. No pregnant woman is ever tested on. On what planet would testing drugs on a pregnant woman be acceptable. But women were not excluded from the trials , far from it .

I can’t work out of people actually beleive the stuff they post,or they make it up in their heads and post it. Knowing it is nonsense, because they are so resentful about people getting these drugs and they want them.

i mean women were largely excluded from the trials. I cringe just reading it.

@ThatCoralShark
I wish this statement was as absolutely absurd as it sounds however it was only in the 90s that the routine inclusion of women in clinical trials became mandatory. The main reason for their exclusion was the risk of pregnancy. This article relates the the fda but I believe the British regulatory bodies followed a similar timeframe.

https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health#:~:text=1993%3A%20The%20FDA%20reverses%20its,in%20NIH%2Dsponsored%20clinical%20trials.

In terms of preclinical research it was omly in the past 10- 15 years that the UKs major science funding bodies issued guidance on the inclusion of females jn preclinical studies. 15 years ago when I started my masters I was told we only use males as females have hormones which becomes expensive to account for. It was along side an implication that males and females are the same.

This type of attitude has luckily been massively changed and the perception of women as men with hormones is no longer accepted. However this is far more recent then it should have been.

These hormones have been in use to treat diabetes for over two decades.. 😂😂
Rather hyperbolic posts...

Indeed. In fact a quick google search confirms this, so am unsure why PPs here are so adamant that supposedly dangerous drugs have been used to treat vulnerable diabetic patients without complication since 2005. It is only because, over that 20 years, they noticed those taking it also experienced significant weight loss that they began to explore it’s effects on the obese. Have posted above that in 2014 they ascertain lower levels of natural GLP1 secretion in obese patients, justifying the use of these drugs.

“The FDA approved the first glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) to treat type 2 diabetes in 2005:
Exenatide (Byetta): The first GLP-1 RA, approved in 2005, was derived from the saliva of the Gila monster. It was administered twice daily.

Since then, other GLP-1 RAs have been developed, including:
Liraglutide (Victoza): The first once-daily GLP-1 RA, approved in 2010. It's not recommended as a first-line agent.
Dulaglutide: Approved in 2014, it's administered once weekly.
Semaglutide (Ozempic): Approved in 2017, it has an extended half-life of 7 days, enabling once-a-week dosing.
Rybelsus: Approved in 2019, it's the first oral GLP-1 analog treatment for adults with type 2 diabetes.
Tirzepatide: Approved in 2022, it's administered once weekly by subcutaneous injection. “

Perhaps because the juries out on whether they cause pancreatic cancer?

@PrincessofWells source?

Perhaps because the juries out on whether they cause pancreatic cancer?

Really ? because the published research papers i can find dont say that? what is your source?

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/ozempic-wegovy-other-glp1-drugs-not-linked-to-pancreatic-cancer-risk-study-finds

The horrible thing about pancreatic cancer is that it can take a very long time for symptoms to be enough to get noticed and then diagnosed. It has such a bad outlook precisely because it's often only diagnosed once it's metastasised to elsewhere. So those stories where someone has been on MJ or Ozempic for six months and then found they have pancreatic cancer, the likelihood is that they've had it since before starting (and as we know, what's one of the causes of pancreatic cancer? Obesity).

Oh and being diabetic is another risk factor!

The problem with Ozempic & co is not when it's used as intended: for heavily overweight people to get to a healthy weight. The problem is when those already there starts to take it in order to look gaunt as certain celebrities. It's just another heroin chic wave but the heroin replaced. I am afraid for young people mainly who might be tempted to try this in order to look like their idol. Ariana Grande is not healthy, she looks like a bag of bones and yet so many young girls want to look like her...

Ariana Grande is not healthy, she looks like a bag of bones

Rude comment.

And how do you know about AG’s health? Are you her doctor?

@arcticpandas well yes, but just because some people misuse it doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for those who need it. There's lots of safeguards in place for prescribing it. And yes there's ways round those safeguards, but isn't there always!