People judge weight loss more harshly when GLP-1 drugs are involved, study finds

[Smiter]

in general oppose drugs being illegal as , as far as I am concerned their illegality usually causes more problems than the drugs themselves.

I think it is partly as having a serious lifelong problem with weight , and I see these drugs as lifesaving treatments, it does seem just a bit too easy to take some reta to get body fat from 16% to 12%, when I have never been that thin ever. So maybe it is just jealosy .

And I do genuinely think that often those with very minor weight issues or body builders may not have thought through the risk to benefit equations of taking GLP's long term, especially as the long term risks in those populations have never really been studied , so are effectively unknown. And presumably rare and unlikely but severe risks like pancreatitis or NAION are just as likely in those people , but not counterbalanced by dramatic reductions in weight and other health consequences of obesity fixed by GLP's. A slightly thinner bodybuilder who suddenly loses vision in an eye is in some ways a worse outcome than someone with severe obesity who lost 30% of their weight and their diabetes was reversed, and did not have a heart attack, who loses an eye. At least their diabetes was fixed and they missed out on the heart attack, as some sort of compensation.

This is a magnificent post. I totally disagree about the illegality of certain drugs. If something impairs cognition, then it absolutely must be illegal. Already, stupid people are in the majority. Cognitive impairment with drugs would exacerbate that problem. Rights cannot exist unless there is a ubiquitous acceptance in the populace which mandates the need for vigilant cognition.
And for sure, many people do use stuff without having assessed the risk-to-benefit of that compound. I have no problem with that. It's their body, their choice. As long as another life is not being harmed, I have no issues. Stupid people are allowed to exist, so stupidity will exist too.
But my biggest disagreement there is the reliance inherent in the "risks haven't been studied" verbiage. Most people use scientific studies as "arguments from authority". While Ethos claims are utilized everywhere, it doesn't change the fact that they are logical fallacies. 99% of the scientific community once considered "continental drift" hypothesis as hogwash. Worse, for our own obesity topic- Ancel Keys and the 7 countries Study is one of the most heinous scams perpetrated on humanity. Published in 1979, followed by the US dietary recommendation charts based on it. Since the 1980's, there has been this fad for low-fat, zero-fat products in the mainstream with an impetus on it being necessary for good health. Yet, the obesity pandemic started in 1980's as well. And for some reason, the low-fat craze has been accompanied by a worsening of obesity in society. I have heard about how some cereal food manufacturers funded some of the people in the countries study and they also try to suppress or discredit the Israeli paradox and French paradox.
They also malign red meat, saturated fat, and promote plant/vegan/vegetarian diets. And I look at the 4 places in the Blue Zone. Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardinia, Costa Rica. Guess how many of those 4 places' traditional cuisines avoid red meat, sat fat, and are vegan? Zero!

Ergo, argument from authority is a fallacy while empirical evidence is not.

That said, it obviously is risky for bodybuilders to use GLp's to cut weight, but then, Stanozolol and other AAS's are risky too.

 

[yerffejytnac]

I don't understand how this is any different from someone using TRT to gain muscle mass, just a double standard and excuse for bitchy people to bitch about something.

 

[lessthanhalf]

This is a magnificent post. I totally disagree about the illegality of certain drugs. If something impairs cognition, then it absolutely must be illegal. Already, stupid people are in the majority. Cognitive impairment with drugs would exacerbate that problem. Rights cannot exist unless there is a ubiquitous acceptance in the populace which mandates the need for vigilant cognition.
And for sure, many people do use stuff without having assessed the risk-to-benefit of that compound. I have no problem with that. It's their body, their choice. As long as another life is not being harmed, I have no issues. Stupid people are allowed to exist, so stupidity will exist too.
But my biggest disagreement there is the reliance inherent in the "risks haven't been studied" verbiage. Most people use scientific studies as "arguments from authority". While Ethos claims are utilized everywhere, it doesn't change the fact that they are logical fallacies. 99% of the scientific community once considered "continental drift" hypothesis as hogwash. Worse, for our own obesity topic- Ancel Keys and the 7 countries Study is one of the most heinous scams perpetrated on humanity. Published in 1979, followed by the US dietary recommendation charts based on it. Since the 1980's, there has been this fad for low-fat, zero-fat products in the mainstream with an impetus on it being necessary for good health. Yet, the obesity pandemic started in 1980's as well. And for some reason, the low-fat craze has been accompanied by a worsening of obesity in society. I have heard about how some cereal food manufacturers funded some of the people in the countries study and they also try to suppress or discredit the Israeli paradox and French paradox.
They also malign red meat, saturated fat, and promote plant/vegan/vegetarian diets. And I look at the 4 places in the Blue Zone. Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardinia, Costa Rica. Guess how many of those 4 places' traditional cuisines avoid red meat, sat fat, and are vegan? Zero!

Ergo, argument from authority is a fallacy while empirical evidence is not.

That said, it obviously is risky for bodybuilders to use GLp's to cut weight, but then, Stanozolol and other AAS's are risky too.

Despite thinking that in general drugs being illegal causes more harm than benefits , I do not really believe freely available cheap meth and fentanyl would be a net benefit to society, some drugs are just super addictive. And would cause plenty of harm were they more readily available.
And GLP's are probably the most healthy drug bodybuilders are taking, at least it probably has net health benefits, even if not proven for healthy populations. You really cannot make that argument for high dose AAS or HGH.
And I agree there have been some pretty terrible beliefs about healthy diets at various points, The old food pyramid is pretty bad and the recent US one is possibly even worse, but these were not purely scientific decisions and were heavily influenced by large corporations promoting their foods. The good thing about the science is it is a self correcting system over time, and is prepared to throw out old beliefs if the evidence says they were wrong, not always , not quickly , but a lot of errors get corrected over time as new studies generate new knowledge.

 

[Smiter]

You really cannot make that argument for high dose AAS or HGH.

Of course, but that holds true for just about anything. high dose is excessive, only the symptomatic effects vary.

but these were not purely scientific decisions and were heavily influenced by large corporations promoting their foods

Yeah, the problem is that some of the 'scientific' decisions were influenced by large corporations, and were thus unscientific. See, I am not denying that all studies aren't valid, but people forget that scientists work for money too. Most research labs are funded by mega corporations or their elite. Independent verification can become compromised as well. Arguments from authority are fallacious for a reason. I don't deny that it is hard to obtain the truth because of it.

The good thing about the science is it is a self correcting system over time, and is prepared to throw out old beliefs if the evidence says they were wrong, not always , not quickly , but a lot of errors get corrected over time as new studies generate new knowledge.

No doubt. The only problem with that is, as long as the human element is involved, the reverse can hold true as well. Errors can distort what was factual once. Therefore, multifarious evidence should be sought, and imo, reliance on mere scientific studies, that lack empirical evidence, should always be looked at first with a skeptical lens, understanding that it isn't anything else but an argument from authority.

I don't know if you're familiar with this, but do you know about those dudes who wrote utter hogwash about some sociological/feminazi rubbish and got it peer-reviewed, and published in several scientific journals, just as an experiment to prove how rotten the academic/scientific community is? I forgot the specifics. I think it was around 2018 or something when it happened.

 

[Smiter]

And GLP's are probably the most healthy drug bodybuilders are taking, at least it probably has net health benefits, even if not proven for healthy populations. You really cannot make that argument for high dose AAS or HGH

Non sequitur/False equivalency fallacy, I think. Sorry, didn't do it in the previous response. High dose GLP should be compared to high dose AAS and GH. And if you compare optimal dose on each, I submit that Testosterone would be far healthier than GLP's simply due to the systemic effects on quality of life. It depends on what can be considered health benefits. A muscular, stronger, more masculine body is imho, healthier than an average, normal BMI body.

 

[TeresaHip]

I've noticed that people who are unhealthy and severely overweight are mainly the ones who say GLP's are "cheating". I've been using Reta since Oct 2025 and have lost 30lb. My bloodwork is now significantly better than before I started. It's also the severely overweight people who say they are worried about the unknown long term side effects. My scale results and my bloodwork results make me believe that my long term health has only improved.

I think I would be more worried about being obese does to your body. Definitely more than taking a glp.
The thing I'm loving is all the money I'm saving being on them.
I don't have to pay extra for airplane accommodations for my weight.
My grocery bill is cut in half or more.
I don't pay as much for prescriptions because since losing weight I've went off some.
We don't go out to eat much now.
I can now take those vacations and buy a few things I want now.

 

[Ruckus4519]

That it's not healthy to do it with "drugs"

Had a friend who I confided to about doing this, and they started expressing their concern. I had to gently cut them off. I still remember the shit they've said about fat people to really accept their concern.

my favorite weight loss drug used to be clenbuterol

Ohhh shittt I've only heard about that one because of that UK lady that died from taking it. Couldn't really judge. I probably would've tried it myself

hidradenitis suppurativa

Do/Have you used Hibiclens at all? That's the brand name, I think. It's supposed to help with that condition. I was looking it up earlier because I've heard good things about it, but it might not be for me.

 

[lessthanhalf]

Non sequitur/False equivalency fallacy, I think. Sorry, didn't do it in the previous response. High dose GLP should be compared to high dose AAS and GH. And if you compare optimal dose on each, I submit that Testosterone would be far healthier than GLP's simply due to the systemic effects on quality of life. It depends on what can be considered health benefits. A muscular, stronger, more masculine body is imho, healthier than an average, normal BMI body.

Both tirzepatide and semaglutide have been shown to reduce overall mortality, or death from all causes, and rates of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and development of diabetes , cancer is a bit more complicated but almost certainly risks of many obesity related cancers as well. This is proven in both diabetics and those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. It is not proven at this point in lower risk general populations simply because they get sick less often so it takes much larger studies over long periods of time to detect these effects. They have also been shown to be more effective at producing those health benefits at full doses, than they are at lower doses.

Proving this happens in low risk groups is not likely to happen anytime soon given the scale of the studies required, but it is reasonable to extrapolate from existing knowledge and from reductions in known cardiovascular risk factors like obesity ,blood sugars, lipids and blood pressure by GLP drugs that these drugs are likely to reduce risks in the general population. There is no evidence that higher doses of GLP drugs are more likely to cause serious adverse effects, other than the usual well known issues like gastrointestinal side effects.

Replacement dose TRT is in general thought to be safe, there are some studies showing increased cardiovascular risk and some showing reduced risk, the current consensus is they are likely to be safe, but there is no evidence of long term health benefits. The changes in muscle mass from replacement dose TRT are small. Higher doses of androgenic hormones do have high rates of adverse effects, especially the ones not often discussed at Meso, psychiatric and mood related issues. At higher doses excessive anger and irritability is common ( >10% ), and depression is also common especially when levels of hormones drop. It is unlikely that doses above physiological are harmless in terms of cardiovascular risk or of increased risks of androgen dependent cancers, such as prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men.

Studies of higher dose androgen therapy do not exist as it is not regarded as a useful therapy, so long term risks cannot be known. There are a few small scale observational or self reported studies in bodybuilders which is where the data on mental adverse effects come from.

The long term safety of hgh therapy is essentially unknown, there have not been long term studies of its use outside the context of brain damage related growth hormone deficiency or short stature in children due to gh deficiency. A few small short studies have been done in older people, but no where near enough data to say anything about long term safety . And in general in animal studies, blocking gh or igf-1 increases lifespan, which suggests increasing them could do the opposite.

 

[Calm Logic]

And the award for best post in the field of bro science goes to...

High dose GLP should be compared to high dose AAS and GH. And if you compare optimal dose on each, I submit that Testosterone would be far healthier than GLP's simply due to the systemic effects on quality of life. It depends on what can be considered health benefits. A muscular, stronger, more masculine body is imho, healthier than an average, normal BMI body.

Generally speaking, it is estrogen, not testosterone, that leads to longevity. That's one reason women outlive men, including their cardiovascular system aging about ten years less.

Quality of life arguments by guys on TRT or at least TRT+ tend to verge on YOLO rather than health span per se.

At some point, more muscle overworks and stiffens the heart, which has to continuously pump blood to all that mass, lean or not.

And, of course, no cancer researcher in the world thinks GH peptides are a good idea for recreational use. Some of them don't even like milk, since it can raise IGF-1.

 

[Smiter]

Generally speaking, it is estrogen, not testosterone, that leads to longevity. That's one reason women outlive men, including their cardiovascular system aging about ten years less.

Quality of life arguments by guys on TRT or at least TRT+ tend to verge on YOLO rather than health span per se. And, of course, no cancer researcher in the world thinks GH peptides are a good idea for recreational use. Some of them don't even like milk, since it can raise IGF-1.

Longevity is not a synonym for health, healthspan, nor does it imply a higher quality of life. Oh and everybody lives only once. And recreational use is not the same as optimal dose. TRT to stave off sarcopenia and maintain masculinity is akin to a prudent dose. Steroids can be misused, overused, and abused. Logically, these scenarios were outside the scope, relevance of my argument's frame. But since you brought it up, it's an interesting hypothetical. I wonder what a majority of men might choose: a full life with their vim, vitality, and vigor lasting longer, or a decade-longer lifespan with the usual senescence?

P.S: Interesting display name.

 

[Smiter]

Replacement dose TRT is in general thought to be safe, there are some studies showing increased cardiovascular risk and some showing reduced risk, the current consensus is they are likely to be safe, but there is no evidence of long term health benefits. The changes in muscle mass from replacement dose TRT are small.

A great post above. I concur with most of what was said. Once again, it comes to the studies or the paucity of them for this area. Yes, you're right. There's a dearth of studies conducted on TRT, and especially higher/overdose. Anecdotal and empirical evidence can serve in stead. Long-term health benefits include staving off sarcopenia, delayed atrophy of tendon strength.

There is no evidence that higher doses of GLP drugs are more likely to cause serious adverse effects, other than the usual well known issues like gastrointestinal side effects.

Ah, logically this would indicate that this lack would also be due to a deliberate choice not to subject people to a higher/overdose of GLp-1s. Hypoglycemia should be a most plausible effect of a dose too high. I do remember the bit about metformin being safer in this regard compared to sitagliptin, because of the mechanisms of working.

Superb discussion anyway. Love picking brains this way.

 

[Calm Logic]

I wonder what a majority of men might choose: a full life with their vim, vitality, and vigor lasting longer, or a decade-longer lifespan with the usual senescence?

The quality of one's social connections is the strongest predictor of happiness at any age. Women tend to do better than men in that department as well. But they also have more of a caregiver burden.

 

[Smiter]

Also: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7977683/

That study alludes to how lean body muscle is a "good" source to measure the amount of left ventricular hypertrophy in obese children. It's useful info, I suppose, though it bears no relevance here: a non sequitur.

Obesity, being a state of likely hormonal dysfunction, such situations are unsurprising.

 

[Smiter]

The quality of one's social connections is the strongest predictor of happiness at any age.

For people who are predisposed to an over-reliance on socialization, sure. Immediately, I am reminded of those unfortunate souls who perished because they couldn't bear the isolation of lockdowns. Some folks might experience solitude where others get lonely. I wonder whether socialization is a requirement for introverts' happiness. I see many old people suffering from the loneliness epidemic, and some research shows that the loss of a long-term spouse was the greatest predictor of isolation in this demographic.

I don't see how this bears any relevance to the original frame of the argument either. I guess when men are healthier, their social life would be better too. More energy, libido, and agency in general could be utilized for that purpose.

Interestingly, the folks who used the ALCOR life extension services were not considering social quality when they agreed to be decapitated and preserved.

 

[Calm Logic]

I don't see how this bears any relevance to the original frame of the argument either. I guess when men are healthier, their social life would be better too. More energy, libido, and agency in general could be utilized for that purpose.

It goes the other way too. More socialization enhances overall wellbeing, including health markers, energy level, etc.

Interestingly, the folks who used the ALCOR life extension services were not considering social quality when they agreed to be decapitated and preserved.

Alcor is about two hours away, haha. It is arguably a cult for mitigating death anxiety, so a sociological landscape there as well. (Once a psych major, always a psych major.)

But you are hitting on a theme of quality vs. quantity, which goes back to my YOLO criticism of the manic, self-focused bro culture, which is partially fueled by a sense of not being enough. But of course, always wanting more is the American way, at the expense of being grateful for what we do have. One can be too focused on health, lifespan, or energy levels as well (at the expense of health, lifespan, and energy levels), so plenty of paradoxes as with all of human psychology.

 

[Smiter]

Both tirzepatide and semaglutide have been shown to reduce overall mortality, or death from all causes,

To summarize, the absence of death would be synonymous with the presence of life, not the presence of life quality.

The quality of one's social connections is the strongest predictor of happiness at any age. Women tend to do better than men in that department as well.

Yes, women tend to desire socialization more than men. It's innate. Thus, they would be happy the better their social connections are. That makes sense. The biggest predictor of abuse in children happens to be the presence of a step-parent in the home, apparently. Informative, for certain. Many men do not crave or depend on socialization in their youth. It has even become a joke in stand-up comedy shows. Men can think about nothing, and it's usually men who relish solitude.

 

[Smiter]

More socialization enhances overall wellbeing, including health markers, energy level, etc.

That claim seems excessive. Wellbeing would be enhanced for those who 'need' socialization. It's logical. For an introvert, I suspect the socialization might have the opposite impact on their wellbeing that an extrovert would have.

 

[lessthanhalf]

Not sure how to quote selectively so in response to this

"To summarize, the absence of death would be synonymous with the presence of life, not the presence of life quality."

The long term health benefits of GLP drugs are very real. I suspect how real it seems might depend a bit on how close to the pointy end of those events you might be.

I think I can definitely say that tirzepatide ( plus a bit of reta and cagrilintide ) substantially contribute to my physical health , likely lifespan and healthspan and mental health.
As a result of testing , I probably have a risk of developing clinical heart failure or other serious cardiovascular disease, stroke or death somewhere around the 20-30% range over the next decade, assuming I maintain weight and take statins, ezetimibe, clopidogrel, beta blockers, ace blockers etc. Now at age 58 that is not fantastic, but were I to regain the 80 kilos I have lost, those odds start to look really awful, my best guess is my odds of getting another 10 years of reasonable health becomes very small, as in pretty unlikely.

Given every other time in my life I have got my weight to normal or near normal levels, I have managed to regain that weight, the main thing reducing that risk of putting the weight back on, which would add a lot of stress given the health implications, is GLP drugs. As I initially lost the weight without them and kept it off for a year afterwards, I know exactly how hard it is to keep the weight off, and how hard it is to keep the weight off with GLP support, which is not super easy, but I no longer have to choose multiple times every day to not eat when hungry, and it more or less works so long as I stick to eating foods in my allowed categories, and works without constant mental effort.

So not only do the GLP drugs reduce the chances of unpleasant physical illnesses in my near future, they substantially reduce the stress of worrying about it happening. And I imagine my current quality of life is better than it would be after a stroke or heart attack or heart failure. And it means I can stay the thinnest I have been since my early teens, which makes doing anything and everything easier and more pleasant, and I can do it without suffering constant hunger. So a definite win for quality of life.

The replacement dose TRT ( prescribed rather than grey ) I am also on might increase muscle a kilo or 2 , and maybe boosts energy and libido a tiny bit? But the effects are very minor compared to GLPs. The HGH I am also taking might increase muscle a tiny bit, and did seem to reduce waist circumference, and might be helping me maintain my weight, but is riskier, as even the 1.5iu I was taking turned out to be much too much possibly increasing cardiac failure risks, so now on 0.8iu and will recheck igf-1. One of the few studies on TRT and HGH in older males showed a 5% increase in lean mass from the combination of both HGH and TRT, so the effect is not huge.

 

[Smiter]

The long post makes me feel guilty for doing this, but I agree with everything in your post. You see, none of the things you said contradicts what I was talking about. No TRT usage will benefit to the potential maximum without the proper training.

P.S: As compensation- use mouse right click, drag and select the text you wanna quote, a new black dropdown will appear. Click on the 'reply' there and voila, this happens.

Not sure how to quote selectively so in response to this

😎

 

[Smiter]

Alcor is about two hours away, haha. It is arguably a cult for mitigating death anxiety, so a sociological landscape there as well.

Oh I don't disagree, the cult-like attitude is definitely present but referencing death anxiety a sociological landscape seems akin to how sociology is mostly a pseudoscience.

YOLO criticism of the manic, self-focused bro culture, which is partially fueled by a sense of not being enough

And self-focused is the natural state of affairs for every lifeform. Evolution itself is driven by it. And like I iterated earlier, everybody lives only once. Therefore, as Maslow pointed out, the desire to achieve self-actualization and become the best versions of themselves, is inherent. It's not American, it's universal. Of course, one can become too engrossed in it, but that's true of everything. However, some people refusing to recognize that fact and attempting to indulge in a banal dismissal of individualism could be a result of fallacious, indoctrinated collectivism, which in no way contradicts the veracity of individualism. It's not bro-culture, it's human nature. In fact, the entire progress of the human species can be simplified down to the desire of humanity to better itself. The day that stops, well, a bunch of hammer and sickles will be left rusted and ignored.

so plenty of paradoxes as with all of human psychology.

Oh there are plenty of paradoxes in psychology, but not here. Just because a principle is correct, doesn't mean that its execution would be good, too. Incompetence can confound the best laid plans. That's why merit and quality ought to be rated highly. Focusing on superior quality of life is the way to go, doesn't mean that one should go overboard. 😈 😎

 

[Bioexplorer]

A great post above. I concur with most of what was said. Once again, it comes to the studies or the paucity of them for this area. Yes, you're right. There's a dearth of studies conducted on TRT, and especially higher/overdose. Anecdotal and empirical evidence can serve in stead. Long-term health benefits include staving off sarcopenia, delayed atrophy of tendon strength.

Actually, the published studies show just the opposite regarding test effect on tendon health. Doses above therapeutic level are strongly correlated with tendon ruptures. The root cause of failure is debated.

 

[Smiter]

Actually, the published studies show just the opposite regarding test effect on tendon health. Doses above therapeutic level are strongly correlated with tendon ruptures. The root cause of failure is debated.

Yes, because people overtrain for muscular hypertrophy without developing their tendons simultaneously. Tendons are viscoelastic and their stiffness and associated Young's modulus rises with load. Hence, why a focus on myofibrillar hypertrophy instead of the sarcoplasmic/bodybuilding growth is mandated. Also, tendons could have ruptured due to overtraining as well.. in essence, correlation and associations as seen in many studies, are moot at best. I hardly see causation ever mentioned in these studies.

 

[domin8brix]

I feel like this study is one of those "yea thanks captain obvious!"

There's so many nonsense tropes about GLPs or bariatric surgery being "cheats" or "the easy way out," and it's always repeated by someone who has zero actual knowledge about either, and of course someone always knows their dog groomer's neighbor's cousin who "died from surgery!" or whatever load of bs they regurgitate to shame someone else. What I have learned in my 48 years on earth is that if you're overweight, it was somehow decided you were unworthy to live, and you'll be told by everyone to get it together and work out. Doctors will treat you like a pariah, and blame everything on weight, even things totally unrelated to weight--especially if you're a woman, and even more if you're a woman of color. They act like you aren't aware that you're overweight, and in many cases, you're already working on it, but that's never enough. But then, they see you working on it and how dare you go to the gym as an overweight person, people mock you for being overweight working out, making obnoxious tiktoks of the earth quaking when you do something. You get approached by "coaches" and trainers out in the wild, and in your comments or DMs on whatever social site you were posted on.

GLPs and bariatric surgeries don't take the work out of it. You still have to eat right, cut your portions and work out. Losing, I've found, is the "easy part", though. Maintaining is the hardest. We've been trained (especially women and girls) all our lives to be skinny and diet culture and how we have to look a certain way in order to get a husband or be liked or be worthy of our parents' love...and my god it is exhausting. But I've had surgery AND use GLPs to help me maintain, and none of this is easy.

 

[domin8brix]

wow. can't win for losing--literally in this case. people think those things of fat folks, now they think those things of people who lose via glp-1 meds. I wonder how they feel about folks who've lost weight via surgery?

some people really believe fat people should suffer for the "sin" of being fat. so you do it the "right" way and they praise you, yea? you gain it back, see? you're just less than, try again and again and again and again, but the way they deem acceptable.

They think we took the easy way out and are even less "worthy" because of it and they make absolutely sure they tell you you're absolute trash and that their neighbor's old neighbor's cousin's dogwalker died because they took the easy way out! Tell me how it's SO EASY going on a full liquid diet for 2 weeks before someone cuts into you to cut your stomach into a tube and remove the rest, after which then you have to try to drink sips of water for a week, or other clear liquids or protein shakes that you can barely get a tiny medicine cup down in an hour. If you're lucky you get like 8oz of anything in your body in a day for months.

 

[ochoseis]

Do/Have you used Hibiclens at all? That's the brand name, I think. It's supposed to help with that condition. I was looking it up earlier because I've heard good things about it, but it might not be for me.

I have in the past. It just severely dried my skin out lol. I'm sure it helps some people but I had to get really serious about my diet (not just weight loss) and stop trying different ointments/soaps/lotions.

I am mostly under control with HS at this point. I am using glycolic acid (from the ordinary) and have noticed a lot of improvements in the scarring but it's by no means a quick fix and I don't think that it would necessarily prevent a new flare on its own.

Not sure if you have HS or not but my time line with it was basically:

Quit smoking, still fat, eating whatever - less flares.

Watching diet, eliminating trigger foods, but still fat - noticeable improvement, would go months without a flare and those flares were only isolated to my armpits.

Going from an obese BMI to overweight/normal - zero flares, would not know I had HS if it wasn't for the aftermath of it. Any time I have regained the weight I start getting new bumps, although not as severe as before with smoking & eating like garbage lol.

 

[domin8brix]

As someone who does not look good in green no matter what shade of it I try, GET THE GREEN ONE FOR MEE.

I put on a hoodie yesterday (you know, THE hoodie. The safe one that I didn't feel too fat in a year ago but was not so slowly eating my way out of...) and it was just hanging on me. I got all excited and snapped a picture and sent it to my friend group chat like, "guys! this was so tight on me! I'm doing the thing!" and everyone was super supportive except for the one "friend" who has every excuse under the sun for why she's 340lbs, snaps back with, "Better keep it, you know you'll be back at 230lbs by November 🤣🤣🤣 "

No I won't. I'm petty.

I would seriously have responded with "and if you got started right now, you might be too!" I will respond with the deepest possible cut possible, and leave them to bleed out. And they'd never see or hear from me again.

It's evident though that she is SEETHING with envy, she felt superior to you, and then you lost weight and now her inferiority is really coming out. She didn't have success trying or isn't trying to be successful, so anything she can do to sh!t on your success makes her feel like she's regaining that queen bee position. As much as I know we need bees to maintain civilization, she's one I'd spray with pesticide.

 

[Ruckus4519]

Yes, women tend to desire socialization more than men. It's innate.

I doubt men and women are all that different when it comes to basic socialization needs. I'd argue it's more nurture than nature for this particular aspect. Society in general categorizes women to be "more emotional", "more nurturing", thus allowing and even expecting those traits from them. At the same time, men are expected to exhibit traits that are "opposite" of what women supposedly are.

 

[RoadRash]

People judge weight loss more harshly when GLP-1 drugs are involved, study finds

In four pre-registered studies across Belgium, the US, and the UK, people judged anti-obesity medication users as putting in less effort and, in turn, viewed them as less moral, competent, warm, and deserving than non-users. The findings suggest that effort moralization may help drive stigma...

www.news-medical.net

Not too surprising that society has negative connotations regarding weight-loss medications, but that people using the medications are “viewed as less moral, competent, and deserving.” is kind of sad…

Who cares. I don't give a shit what anyone thinks, frankly. I'm too old and too secure in who I am to judge others or have them judge me.

 

[Smiter]

I doubt men and women are all that different when it comes to basic socialization needs. I'd argue it's more nurture than nature for this particular aspect. Society in general categorizes women to be "more emotional", "more nurturing", thus allowing and even expecting those traits from them. At the same time, men are expected to exhibit traits that are "opposite" of what women supposedly are.

Yeah, it's similar to the Meads vs Freeman debate. But the evidence is clear and has been studied in multiple instances. As a collective, most women choose jobs that deal with people, while men choose professions that are object-oriented. The top 20 careers chosen by women even today reflect this. It's well known that women crave social affirmation, and this is reflected in social media trends too. The kind of games played as children also highlights this phenomenon. "Basic" socialization needs are therefore, not all that basic. On average there are 40% introverts in any populace. Their socialization needs would not be all that "needy". Btw, it is interesting to note that this 40% becomes 75% when looking at the number of introverts among high-IQ people.

 

[Smiter]

I doubt men and women are all that different when it comes to basic socialization needs. I'd argue it's more nurture than nature for this particular aspect. Society in general categorizes women to be "more emotional", "more nurturing", thus allowing and even expecting those traits from them. At the same time, men are expected to exhibit traits that are "opposite" of what women supposedly are.

Also, for the topic, do you think that this "socialization need" many people have makes them more vulnerable to the inane and insane jibes of others about using "shortcuts & cheats"? I, for one, freely posit that my INTJ personality type renders me near immune to that sort of thing. There's another reason too, in my case, which can be hazardous if erroneously used, but that's irrelevant here.