Daily Pill May Work as Well as Ozempic for Weight Loss and Blood Sugar

32 points by uxhacker 2 months ago | 71 comments
  • uxhacker 2 months ago
    Not just that the pill works as well as the jab, but Lilly has stockpiled over a billion pills to meet expected demand.
    • bluesounddirect 2 months ago
    • Spooky23 2 months ago
      Duh. Rybelsus has been available for a couple of years, and is the legit source for the compounding pharmacies selling GLP drugs.

      The downside is that it you need to be disciplined taking it. First thing in the AM, empty stomach, no eating or drinking for a half hour.

      • basisword 2 months ago
        If obesity becomes treatable with a pill I'm really curious to see how it impacts the demand for healthcare, particularly in countries with free public health care. Could it cut the demand enough so that with current spending availability and quality of treatment can increase a meaningful amount?
        • lotsofpulp 2 months ago
          I am interested in how it impacts all the businesses based on selling dissolved sugar and excess carbs.
        • raydev 2 months ago
          Don't all the countries with "free public health care" (understand this is loosely defined) already have much lower obesity rates relative to the US?
          • BSDobelix 2 months ago
            Just to be clear, there are NO Country's with "free public health care" but Europe has (mostly) "health care paid by society with compulsory health insurance or taxes and some taxes on alcohol/tabacco etc and some even on sugar ;) ".
            • adzm 2 months ago
              > Europe has (mostly) "health care paid by society with compulsory health insurance and some taxes on alcohol/tabacco etc and some on sugar ;) ".

              Which is colloquially referred to as free healthcare.

            • basisword 2 months ago
              Frustrating. I considered expanding on the definition of 'free' in my comment to ward off pedants. Decided it wasn't necessary but we live and learn I suppose.
              • MrBuddyCasino 2 months ago
                "Free" is simply wrong, both pedantically and in a "pushing hidden agendas and framing actually matters" way.

                It is socialised healthcare.

              • peppers-ghost 2 months ago
                Nobody on Earth needs this explained to them
                • BSDobelix 2 months ago
                  Obviously everyone who uses the word "free" instead of "universal" need's it.

                  It's not free beer but universal beer.

                • cassianoleal 2 months ago
                  This is like saying you need to pay to walk on the pavement, or you need to pay to see at night when outside.

                  Of course there is a cost associated but most places count all that as part of the cost of living in society.

                  • BSDobelix 2 months ago
                    >This is like saying you need to pay to walk on the pavement

                    >or you need to pay to see at night when outside.

                    Yes, please go outside and ask any random person that you have free sidewalks and free streetlights, they will probably look at you like you are a toddler.

                  • bfdm 2 months ago
                    This is widely understood to mean "free to the patient at time of use/need". Stop being deliberately obtuse.
                    • Gud 2 months ago
                      I disagree with you. It is better to use precise language.

                      “Free healthcare” is an obvious political term used by people who are in favor of tax funded healthcare. FWIW I come from Sweden where we do have “free healthcare”, and it’s usually referred to as skattefinansierad, which means tax funded…

                      • BSDobelix 2 months ago
                        >This is widely understood to mean "free to the patient at time of use/need".

                        This is called insurance, sometimes provided by society sometimes by business or a mix of both, but never is it "free".

                        • 2 months ago
                    • drcongo 2 months ago
                      Don't we already have this in pill form with Wegovy / Rybelsus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaglutide
                      • biophysboy 2 months ago
                        They are different chemically. Rybelsus is a peptide, whereas orforglipron is small-molecule. Simpler, cheaper, fewer dietary restrictions.
                        • drcongo 2 months ago
                          Ahh, interesting. Thanks.
                      • nerdjon 2 months ago
                        I can't read the article so I don't know if this is answered, but my real question is the price. Is it reasonable for the average person or is this for the rich only.

                        More options are great, but not if most people that need it can't afford it.

                        It is fascinating how quickly this space has evolved. Seems incredibly quick for medicine. That isn't a criticism, just things seem to generally move very slow.

                      • biophysboy 2 months ago
                        Considering that we spend 1% of the fed budget on dialysis alone, glp-1 may have come just in time...
                        • eagerpace 2 months ago
                          Wow, source?
                          • lotsofpulp 2 months ago
                            As of Jun 2021:

                            https://strivehealth.com/news/patients-vs-profits-who-wins-i...

                            >It’s no secret that dialysis is incredibly expensive. Each dialysis patient costs about $100,000 a year to treat, which means that Medicare spends over $30 billion a year treating ESRD patients.

                            >But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.

                            Might not be exactly 1% now, or it might be, since spending is now $6T per year. Regardless, healthcare due to being overweight/obese is a very large portion of government spend.

                            https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

                            • fao_ 2 months ago
                              >But have you ever really thought about what that means for individuals? The cost of dialysis is nearly 1% of the entire federal budget. Put into simpler terms, for every $100 Americans spend in taxes, approximately $1.00 goes toward paying for dialysis.

                              Damn, that's such a shame. I wish that the US would reduce defense spending and spend more on dialysis.

                            • biophysboy 2 months ago
                              https://usrds-adr.niddk.nih.gov/2024/end-stage-renal-disease...

                              It might be a slight overestimate post-covid, but we spend 50 billion on it.

                          • peppers-ghost 2 months ago
                            I wonder if this will make side effects more apparent. 7 doses a week vs. once a week with the shot.
                            • basisword 2 months ago
                              I would have assumed the opposite. If you're spreading the weekly dose into daily pills the dosage each time might be small enough to minimise the side effects (nausea etc).
                              • mathgeek 2 months ago
                                Probably wise to not make any assumptions. It's possible that what you're positing will turn out to be true, but it's also possible that (for example) the presence of the drug in the digestive system before it's absorbed into the blood is the cause of the side effects. Time will tell.
                                • 2 months ago
                                • peppers-ghost 2 months ago
                                  I'd think the dose would be different because it has to go through your stomach rather than directly injected.
                              • hkchad 2 months ago
                                Yea but whats the price? Even w/ insurance a lot of the GLP-1's are hundreds of $$/mo and most can't afford that outside of hollywood.
                                • colingauvin 2 months ago
                                  It's a small molecule. A big, complicated to make, expensive small molecule. But still probably significantly cheaper than the peptide.
                                • colingauvin 2 months ago
                                  There are still some problems with Orfo but it's definitely a step up from the peptide. After Pfizer killed Danuglipron, this is nice to see.
                                  • ekasmrinova 2 months ago
                                    [dead]
                                    • joe_91 2 months ago
                                      Until they find out that there are unintended side effects...

                                      Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!

                                      • jncfhnb 2 months ago
                                        > I enjoy building new things, asking why and helping people see gray rather than black & white.
                                        • thehappypm 2 months ago
                                          Obviously, but that just doesn’t seem to be doable for a huge chunk of the world, so these pills are a way out of the hell that is obesity and diabetes.
                                          • basisword 2 months ago
                                            >> Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!

                                            I'm sure the morbidly obese are unaware of this.

                                            For what it's worth, I'm an ex-smoker and quitting smoking was easy compared to trying to deny myself unhealthy amounts of food. The vast majority of obese people hate it and don't want to be that way - but they're addicted to food. GLP-1's pretty much stop their cravings. Using them to get to a healthy weight and then trying to manage cravings when they are healthier and happier seems like a good solution. Especially given the side-effects of extreme obesity are severe and well known - better to worry about that than 'unintended side effects' that are at this point hypothetical.

                                            • nerdjon 2 months ago
                                              All medication is choosing between the effects of what you are treating the the side effects of the medication.

                                              For a lot of people it isn't that easy. There is a reason weight loss surgery has been a thing for a long time. I could easily see using this as a jumping off point along with making choices about what you eat and increased exercise.

                                              There is a psychological aspect to this, you start making those changes along with something like this so you start seeing the changes you are hoping for and feeling better so you keep with it.

                                              • goda90 2 months ago
                                                Whether you use a pill or jab or neither, exercise exercise exercise! It will increase quality of life and reduce risk factors for lots of causes of death as you get older.
                                                • apercu 2 months ago
                                                  Exercise is great and I wish more people could find the time to do it, but exercise won’t lead to weight loss if people don’t change the horrible diets that got us here in the first place.
                                                  • goda90 2 months ago
                                                    Weight loss shouldn't be the end goal. Health and fitness are what make life longer and more enjoyable. But it happens that excess weight inhibits health and fitness too. A skinny person can be unhealthy and unfit too.
                                                • krisroadruck 2 months ago
                                                  That's a common perspective, but it oversimplifies a complex biological reality many people face.

                                                  The body has sophisticated signaling pathways that regulate hunger and defend fat stores. In some people, dysregulation in pathways like mTORC1 essentially keeps their "hunger volume" turned up regardless of their actual energy needs, increasing hunger-promoting neuropeptides (NPY, AgRP) while decreasing satiety signals (POMC, CART).

                                                  When someone with this dysregulation tries to lose weight, the body deploys additional defenses: reduced non-exercise activity thermogenesis (less fidgeting, less spontaneous movement), increased energy efficiency, and even induced lethargy after intentional exercise to preserve fat stores. This isn't laziness - it's sophisticated biological adaptation.

                                                  This creates a crucial matrix that determines weight outcomes:

                                                  * High willpower + Low hunger signaling: Naturally fit with minimal effort

                                                  * Low willpower + Low hunger signaling: Generally maintains healthy weight without struggle

                                                  * High willpower + High hunger signaling: Might maintain weight with constant effort

                                                  * Low willpower + High hunger signaling: Almost inevitably leads to obesity

                                                  Keep in mind willpower itself has significant genetic and epigenetic components - it's not simply a matter of character. Variations in dopamine and serotonin regulation genes directly affect impulse control and reward processing.

                                                  GLP-1/GIP medications work by intervening in these pathways. They activate receptors in the hypothalamus that can override or bypass the defective mTORC1 signaling. They directly inhibit AgRP/NPY neurons while activating POMC neurons, essentially normalizing the hunger signals. They also slow gastric emptying and modulate the brain's reward system to reduce food's hedonic value. In other words, they take willpower out of the equation. If you aren't hungry, you don't have to fight the urge to eat.

                                                  I'm not just speaking to the science here - I have direct experience. Despite years of disciplined efforts with trainers, various diets, calorie counting I went from 150lbs in my 20s to 315lbs by my 40s. With Zepbound, I've lost 55 pounds in six months without the constant battle. I will have to take this medication for the rest of my life, but I will probably live much longer as a result, and I'm already reaping the rewards in terms of energy, focus, sleep quality, et cetera.

                                                  These medications do have side effects worth considering, but they need to be weighed against the severe health consequences of obesity. Obesity significantly increases risk of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, certain cancers, and premature death. For men specifically, obesity increases sex hormone-binding globulin which reduces free testosterone levels, leading to fatigue, reduced muscle mass, decreased libido, and even depression. The most common side effects of GLP-1 medications (nausea, constipation, diarrhea) are typically mild, manageable, and often diminish over time. While there are theoretical concerns about more serious effects like pancreatitis based on animal studies, clinical data in humans hasn't supported these concerns. Regardless, these potential risks must be balanced against the near-certainty of health complications from remaining morbidly obese.

                                                  For people with dysregulated hunger signaling, these medications aren't just cosmetic interventions—they're addressing a fundamental biological dysfunction that otherwise creates persistent obstacles to maintaining a healthy weight. The risk-benefit analysis strongly favors treatment for those who need it. They make sustainable lifestyle changes possible by removing the constant neurobiological opposition to weight loss.

                                                  • kcplate 2 months ago
                                                    > Better off just exercising and eating as clean as you can!

                                                    Let me guess…you have never had a weight problem. As someone who has lost over 170lbs via diet and exercise and battles like hell every fucking day even eight years later to try and keep it all off, it’s laughable to see some people think it’s so simple.

                                                    • joe_91 2 months ago
                                                      Actually as someone who is over 225lbs and only going up in weight monthly I don't think its fair to presume things about others like that....

                                                      As another commenter said - its simple, not easy...

                                                      • kcplate 2 months ago
                                                        If my presumption was off base, I take it back. But achieving weight loss isn’t simple and it isn’t easy. It’s not simple because even though CICO seems to be a simple equation on its face, getting the “CI” portion of that equation doesn’t work the same way for everyone. So sloganeering and minimizing it misses the greater complexity.

                                                        That is what I felt like the person I replied to had done.

                                                      • philipallstar 2 months ago
                                                        It's not easy, but it definitely is simple.
                                                        • krageon 2 months ago
                                                          You're saying you did what op said and that it worked, and framing it like a criticism.
                                                          • kcplate 2 months ago
                                                            My comment is not a criticism in their prescribed process but in the notion that if a person has difficulty sticking to that process that they shouldn’t look for alternatives. The goal is to lose weight because an unhealthy weight is definitely detrimental to your health in a myriad of ways. If a medication can facilitate weight loss, even at the cost of some side effects, the net gain is still likely better.

                                                            I lost my weight with a low carb, high fat diet. That worked for me but it’s controversial. I heard plenty of criticism about how it was going to damage my kidneys. My attitude was and is that if I live to see kidney damage in my late 70s…that’s better than a massive heart attack or stroke taking me out at 55.

                                                            Because of how tough it was and continues to be if there was an injection, pill, or otherwise that could make it easier—I would take it. Also despite my success without it, I’d suggest any obese person who needs to lose weight but have not had much success, take the medicine, lose the weight you can.

                                                        • gosub100 2 months ago
                                                          just