to feel uneasy about what this means long term rather than surprised by the weight regain itself?

[HazelMember]

I’ve just read a BBC article about research into weight loss injections like Ozempic and Wegovy showing that people who stop taking them tend to regain weight quite quickly.

I’m not shocked that weight comes back. That happens after most weight loss attempts whether they involve medication or not.

These drugs are increasingly talked about as something people might take for years or even indefinitely. That raises questions for me about what happens when someone cannot afford them anymore, when supply changes, when side effects become an issue or when a person simply does not want to stay on a medication for life.

If stopping leads not just to regain but to a fairly rapid rebound, it feels less like a temporary aid and more like something that is very hard to step away from once started. That sits oddly with how casually they are sometimes discussed.

AIBU to think the real issue here is not that people regain weight after stopping, but whether we are quietly normalising a treatment that may be difficult to discontinue once begun? Or is this simply the reality of managing a chronic condition?

You can't really be accusing anyone of projection and then type that second sentence with a straight face!

What is all this objection to the very existance of this thread if not ownership of some drug? What is all the mockery of posters wanting to discuss the topic of thread, if not a weird ownership of some GLP-1 drug of one brand or another the objectors all happen to be on?

I’ve been on the WLI (Wegovy) for a few months. One thing I haven’t experienced (yet) is feeling ill when I eat too much, so I have been waiting for the moment when I feel “just” full, and stop eating there.
I have also been observing the reduction in portion sizes that correlate to me feeling full, and have been reducing the size of my portions accordingly.
The intention is to reach my target weight, then stay on the same portion size to see if I lose or gain weight, adjusting as necessary.
Are you saying that without the WLI, and even with the reduced portion sizes (i .e. the magical “Lifestyle Change” that is discussed very widely), I would gain weight?

You wrote 'The only posters showing ownership of the topic are the ones who insist it must not be discussed'. The idea that only one group can be taking ownership of an issue came from you, not me. You're projecting that onto me. Don't.

My point is about the OP and similar as a group who feel enough ownership to discuss the issue without having any idea what they're talking about. So for example OPs post yesterday about cures and incentives is interesting because she had enough of an opinion to type that, whilst also showing no indication of having engaged with any evidence on the issue (same is also true of the person she was agreeing with). This is distinct from someone who feels ownership of an issue because of their relevant personal or professional experience.

I did ask OP to expand further on that point yesterday, hoping for a meatier discussion of her points than she's yet offered, but didn't get a response.

When 90% of a 600+-post thread is posters defending themselves against a small group of people determined to shut down, derail, and end a topic discussion - because they don't like any criticism of a substance they are injecting - then I call that taking ownership.

Even in this post, you declare it off limits for the OP and others to discuss the issue - as if she has no right to. That is taking ownership. If you are so full of knowledge of the topic, enough to declare who is and isn't allowed to discuss it, why aren't you responding to the question of the PP who wants to know what will happen when she goes off WLI?

More projection! I'm not saying the OPs stance is the only way of taking ownership. The exact opposite, in fact. It's one of multiple ways.

You also need to get better at reading if you think trying to invite someone into discussion, as I have with OP, is declaring it off limits to her. I am again doing the precise opposite.

You and many others like you only want to discuss the topic of the thread so you can use it as a vehicle for your uninformed views on the moral depravity of fat people while signalling the twin virtues of denial and restraint, in full denial of the body of research into the causes of obesity and all tied up in a disingenuous 'I'm just interested in the medicines people take can't we even TALK about this' bow.

And it's this disingenuousness that people taking WLI are reacting strongly to. No one wants to take ownership of anything. They're just a little bored of the pious hand-wringing and pearl clutching, and the faux concern. If you and others like you genuinely cared about obese people, you'd take a step back and think more carefully about how you frame your arguments.

I feel like the best course of action for you, personally, would be to not take a GLP-1 drug. But you need to reach your own decision on that. And trust other people to do the same.

Despite assurances from some, no there’s no magic wand that makes someone gain weight as soon as they stop WLI. If you’ve made lifestyle changes and stick to maintenance calories, there’s no reason why you should put the weight back on.

Agreed and the problem is that this behaviour derails the thread.

A small group keeps forcing the discussion into meta-arguments and personal defensiveness. By trying to shut down lines of discussion they personally dislike, they turn what should be an open exchange into a battle of attacks.

You are in for a jolly long wait

I am doing the same

i honestly don’t understand where the assumption (not on this thread) comes from that the 2nd you stop taking the drug the weight piles on

i am in a calorie deficit, i am trying to maintain and slightly up my calorie intake and I go to the gym….I don’t mind putting on a wee bit of weight while it all settles in

hopefully i can retrain my body to realise that about this weight is ‘right’ for me…i do think my body is fairly stupid though so maybe not 😀

Perhaps you missed my response, where I explained that far from saying you shouldn't speak, I tried to engage you further yesterday to discuss a point you made in more depth. But I didn't get a reply. Can't do exchange by myself!

You haven’t engaged in any meaningful discussion on this thread. As well you know.

I feel like there are some armchair psychologists here 😂

But posters have engaged. Myself and others have explained that the BBC article doesn’t mean what the OP thinks it does. We have explained the physiology of weightloss and why regain is a risk -whichever method is used. We have given reasons why some people choose to remain on GLP long term and why this can benefit their health. We have shared our personal experiences of improved health, and challenged the inconsistent attitudes to obesity and overweight compared with other long term conditions .

But instead of responses to our replies, debating the evidence and our points, we have had whataboutery and accusations of trying to shut down the debate.

You still don’t have anything to say on the subject of the thread you started. You’ve agreed with some posters who’ve said mildly negative things about WLI but had wilfully ignored any questions aimed at you by others. I suspect you and the other main negative voice on this thread are probably the same person. Why don’t you find a better hobby?! This is just sad…

There is still hope! Only 650 posts down and 6 days in, there's loads of space for OP to get a bit more granular and flesh out her points for us.

I for one have total faith that she's going to expand on what sort of obesity cures she thinks might be viable, engage with the explanations people have given of the BBC article. One of these days. It would be massively cynical to think she's just going to keep typing short, content lite replies to posts about shit stirring.

'derail the discussion'

lol!!!

What discussion.

OP's petty pouting gaslighting, is that a discussion? Snide comments, only replying to hangers on? Telling people to leave the thread!!!

Each 'point' OP makes has wider context, doesnt like being informed of that at all, doesnt like being given information. Calls it being 'shut down'

Oh well.

If the worst thing people can say about WLI is that most patients are dependent on them to keep a health problem at bay... that's not too bad at all.

I meant the post immediately preceding mine that asked:

Are you saying that without the WLI, and even with the reduced portion sizes (i .e. the magical “Lifestyle Change” that is discussed very widely), I would gain weight?

People were to busy picking at semantics and flinging accusations at me to engage with her properly. Two posters from the "How dare you discuss a downside to WLI! You are ignorant!" posse did engage with her briefly, later on - but nobody, despite insistences that only the fully informed should be allowed to discuss WLI, really had a proper answer for her - despite allegedly understanding the meta-analysis and its implications and what it really means in real terms.

What constitutes a 'proper' answer? I'd like to be clear on this as I directly answered OPs question in my first post and tried to engage immediately, but I don't know if I'm one of the people you're talking about.

This is the thread that keeps on giving, it’s properly making me chuckle especially now the use of the term meta analysis to try to high brow a whinge of we just want to be negative about them please let us. 😂

But it's not the worst thing that people can say about WLI. For starters, there are the life-affecting conditions currently listed by the pharmaceutical companies that make them. Gastroparesis, pancreatitis, bowel blockages, gallbladder problems, and acute kidney problems, and ileus, or intestinal paralysis; there is also NAION, sudden and complete vision loss, not yet listed as I understand it.

Obviously, if you are morbidly obese, then the benefits outweigh the risks. But if you (general you) are just sick of dieting to keep your weight down, and you have to stop taking them because you have side effects you find hard to live with or you can't afford them currently, or you are unlucky enough to be one of the people who had a severe adverse effect, then you regain the weight (and have in the meantime lost muscle and bone, which are hard to rebuild when older or unwell) four times faster than if you'd lost it by diet alone. Which is what this thread was supposed to be about.

Perhaps you don't have any side effects to mention, and you are lucky enough to not pick up something from the adverse effect list whilst on them, but you can't afford them currently any more, so you go off them. You've gone off them, regained most of the weight, lost more muscle than people who have gone on regular diets and regained more fat in your body composition, if not on the scale (ie more muscle lost, and more fat regained than regular dieters, as studies have shown). Each time someone goes back on them, and loses some weight again, they have again also lost more muscle and bone than if they'd just dieted...

It's going to take years for the real-world data to come in on the serious adverse effects per thousand of population on them, but having read stories from icu doctors about GLP-1 patients in their twenties having to have a colostomy bag for life after a bowel blockage, I would not want to risk that happening, even if it is one in a thousand or more chance.

The article linked in the OP is literally about a meta-analysis.

@velvetgeranium Why would you lose more muscle than on any other diet?