To think it will be revealed WLI cause physical aging

[Tuliptana]

Obviously the pictures of Kelly Osbourne are both sad and terrifying.

But a few women i know have also used this method for weight loss and their skin has lost elasticity. They look at least 10 years older. Is this side effect being under played?

I'm not sure that is true about there being no concern around people taking unnecessary drugs.

Lots of people worry about indiscriminate use of painkillers and even anti-depressant medications. It is just lots of medications are not going to have any attraction to those who don't need them. Bazooka Verucca for someone without a verruca anyone? Thought not.

But skewed attitudes to weight - and those who have been obese are the very ones who should understand the pressures and prejudices - are a problem in our society, and there are people who are vulnerable.

If so, they're a separate group to the posters who've told us they're jealous.

Hopefully you now get that there's nothing odd about mentioning an attitude that we know exists, even if it doesn't make sense to you that people might feel envy at being obese/overweight with a health condition.

@Calliopespa I don't see any posts on this thread that are arguing for people who don't meet prescribing criteria to be allowed to access and use that medication. Nor that it is a good idea or risk free to do so. It's quite clear, and surely not really worth debating, that the risks outweigh any possible benefits for people who are not obese or overweight. Thus making the use of GLP1s for cosmetic weight loss an inappropriate use of a prescription medication, as per the MHRA decision on these medications.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from.

I haven't seen those threads myself - but then we all have seen different things, as many on here have not seen the people using WLIs who simply cannot need them - and for whom the whole "well you never can quite tell obesity by looking" argument manifestly doesn't hold.

But, as you say, it is important we don't dismiss things simply because we ourselves have not been exposed to them, so yes, I'm happy to take your point that such attitudes may well have been expressed.

I gave you an 'agree' because I think most of your post is great, but some people do clearly overestimate their own ability to assess whether someone meets the BMI criteria and this thread contains examples. Obviously it's not true that one can never tell obesity by looking. Kelly Osborne is not obese. Pretty much all of humanity would be able to correctly assess someone with a 50 BMI as obese by looking. But on the margins, not so much, and we see so many posts from people using dress sizes or caveated observational terms. The entire discussion would be much higher quality if we all stopped doing that!

Then what about misuse of opiates? Plenty of drugs do cause damage, but we don’t see that fury and again, it’s all about looks.

This isn’t here is some stats, we are worried due to x y or z, and balancing it with this is the positive health comes, ie obesity is the leading cause of cancer etc.

No this is you will look older.

So it’s about the fact this is a drug that one of the outcomes is women looking more conventionally attractive after taking it. It has a much more significant way of making women look more conventionally attractive than any amount of surgery or Botox will ever have , and that’s why the ridiculous comments on looks and ageing.

and that’s why it looks like jealousy. Give me a reasoned argument about negative health outcomes v proven benefits, and I will listen carefully, come onto a thread spewing about Kelly Osbourne and more widely women’s appearance if they rake the drugs, and you will be hard pressed to tell me it’s about anything other than jealousy and resentment for most women on the drugs.

and again, what’s the point, they aren’t going away, they are escalating and none of us will stop. So venting and making ridiculous ageing claims or attacking womens looks who take them isn’t going to change anything,

They may not be positively arguing for that, but the angry silencing of any qualms expressed around side effects with the kind of responses that run something like: "ah yer jealous cow, read the science: they are HEALTHY. Get therapy" ( and so on) has the effect of obscuring the validity of concerns that are often genuinely expressed.

Weight is an emotive topic, and I think it's important to address it with as little judgment and emotion as possible. People can have weight issues in both directions. Thinner is NOT always better.

I think the focus on looking older is because the people tempted who don't need it are generally very motivated by superficial and cosmetic pressures.

And people do get concerned about opiates. It might just be that you don't feel targeted by those concerns.

@Calliopespa I think the responses you describe can be generated because the people criticising WLI are not at all clear that they mean illegitimate use of WLI by people who don't meet the MHRA prescribing criteria. So people with a BMI < 27 who are accessing WLI illegitimately or getting black market products that are not genuine.

Often the lack of clarity is caused by a large amount of ignorance about what the prescribing criteria actually are, or whether accessing medication privately is legitimate at all.

Exactly! There are whole decades long lawsuits about the misuse and missale of opiates, so people obviously are concerned. There are concerns about uses of the pill and books written about these concerns so the idea that concern over WLI use is driven by envy is a little weird.

Yes, you are right, that does play a role. I think also people don't like to finger point at sources where other justifications for prescribing are being used. But believe me, people are getting them who are using them to fuel weight loss that was never about their obesity.

I am also really surprised how many women who have been obese - and I have good friends who have lived that battle - are not more sensitive to the emotional overreactions around the topic, and the unhealthy and judgmental pressures out there in society, and would not understand the value of treading carefully with the rhetoric.

Yes, as I said upthread such people would be well advised to define their terms properly. I for one take sceptical posts much more seriously when the person makes clear they understand the prescribing guidelines, the ongoing risks of obesity and fact that dress size plus their subjective perception of weight dont mean much.

As an example of term usage, a poster this morning talked about the risks of people using WLIs when they no longer need them. I suspect that poster might have been talking about using them for weight loss once the person is a lower end of normal BMI. But because she didn't bother defining her terms properly she got a number of responses about maintenance. Or maybe she genuinely didn't know about maintenance doses and I'm giving her too much credit.

That’s true, I have said quite often the disconnect is most people using it do it for health, sure some cosmetic, but for most primarily health, but as long as eligible it’s also fine to do it for cosmetic reasons, as mental health is important and few people enjoy being fat, and it can have a huge mental health impact, constantly trying to lose weight, failing, not liking your appearance,

so the people focusing on looks and then pretending it’s concern and they are high brow questioning ,for them it is actually about looks, about attractiveness, and that’s where the negative feelings come in, the desire to attack and bring people down, to proclaim they look older. Ni matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary,

the simple fact is no one is advocating anyone not eligible lies to take them, in fact on other threads people are accused of being gaye keepers due to this. The fact also remains millions of people want them who can’t get them. Due to cost, weight etc, and that can cause a lot of resentment towards those who can.

if this was some worried about global health issue, you’d be seeing a balanced argument, about reduction in obesity related illnesses and death, balanced with the small risks, but you never see that. It is jist constant negativity, much of it from the same posters who appear obsessed and go from thread to thread spouting the same nonsense,

as said for me if someone is eligible, if they do it for cosmetic reasons or health, I don’t care, good for them, if it makes them physically or mentally better or happier. I also don’t care if women dye their hair, have Botox, or anything else they chose to do, to improve their appearance of it makes them feel better about themselves. It is not my place to judge, and certainly not to attack or abuse and dress it up as faux concern.

Indeed that article spoke to 16 plastic surgeons. One of them was a woman and she wasn’t quoted in the article. Sick of men making judgements on our bodies.

And where are the Mumsnet posts about it?

I have never in my life seen someone be scorned for taking birth control because of an assumption that they haven't investigated the potential side effects.

I think, though, there were when they first became topical. My Grandmother certainly seemed to think they were very frightening!

This is about a debate about something new and highly topical.

And my mum's generation are very nervous about HRT.

Well except that this drug is not new. And (at risk of harping on the same point), nobody was lambasting diabetics for taking it when it was newer?

I expect it's probably happened at some point. But at a guess, it's considerably less common than MN posts from people who haven't bothered doing even a smidgen of research but nonetheless have Strong Feelings about their size 16 acquaintance going on the jabs when they could just try diet and exercise instead.

Except it’s not new, and it’s a thread about Kelly osbournes appearance and women looking older. There is nothing topical or new about it.

id have more respect if people owned it, rather than try to pretend they are having a high brow discussion.

Yet no one is all over gransnet or mumsnet proclaiming they look older and better if they didn’t take it.

This is where it completely falls down doesnt it

The 'concern' and 'just having a discussion about the pros and cons'

Diabetics have been on these meds for decades.

No concern appears to have been raised about the pros and cons.

Yes, but in truth that's a medical context, which kind of supports the idea that it is generating interest because of usage spilling outside that context.

Yes and I understand people saying they aren't jealous...but then what are you? And why are you so concerned with something that you don't need or want? I honestly can't fathom it.