This article boils down to "be careful, you might get a tummy ache" and ignores the fact that glp1 is saving millions of lives from heart disease, stroke, and other obesity-related issues.
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
16 points (80.8% liked)
news
795 readers
672 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
“be careful, you might get a tummy ache”
Wow. Pretty dismissive. We don't know the long term effects of these drugs.
GLP-1 agonists may cause persistent gastrointestinal issues (nausea, constipation), muscle loss, and severe, rare risks including pancreatitis, gallbladder disease, and possible kidney damage. Studies also show a higher risk of stomach paralysis (gastroparesis) and potential thyroid tumor risks, necessitating ongoing monitoring.
Did you read the article? It is warning about over-prescribing to people who are not at risk of heart disease, stroke, and other obesity-related issues or who already naturally produce GLP-1 correctly.
If a patient’s body is already producing GLP-1 at normal or elevated levels, prescribing a long-acting agonist isn’t correcting a deficit; it may be amplifying a signal that’s already there. Are the potential effects of that a risk the prescriber and patient are willing to take on?
I am not arguing that these drugs are dangerous and should be restricted. I am arguing that the question of who should receive them has not been asked with nearly enough precision, and that a baseline GLP-1 measurement is an obvious, low-cost starting point.
Seems pretty reasonable?
GLP-1 has already been exploited for 50 years, you know it as the processed food revolution, aka why half of you reading this have problems with your own refined sugar consumption but feel powerless to change it. We need more research but this is a weapon in a war that started a while ago.
That's interesting, I'll look into that more.
I think it's well understood that people who produce glp1 correctly can still be obese and need weight loss and these drugs help with that. That's the whole point of the drug. To provide more glp1 than is needed to lose weight easily.
these drugs help with that
or they cause gastrointestinal conditions in these people, resulting in weight loss (and malnutrition) that is a symptom of the new problem rather than the drug itself. If you don't have GLP-1 problems, then GLP-1 is not a solution, and dieting will be effective.
The entire point of glp1 is to prescribe when dieting isn't effective.
You mean when people refuse to change their diets and restrict caloric intake.
Have you read any of the other comments here? People aren't just "refusing" to change their diets. I'm not going to type my response again but see my comment here. Or maybe this comment by someone else. Or maybe this one. The point is that when 20+% of the population are afflicted with something, it's not a problem of them "refusing" to fix it themselves. It's a systemic issue.
load more comments
(49 replies)
Do we have any implications regarding long term health effects for non-diabetics?
We do not (at least with an acceptable sample size), which does make it a bit of a gamble. However, for some people with severe obesity I'd wager the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, with all of the severe issues that can happen because of that level of obesity. If I had to deal with the drastically increased risk of heart disease et al or a yet to be discovered drawback, I'd go with the yet to be discovered one personally.
view more: next ›