[TIME] The Land That Doesn't Need Ozempic

It could easily be my own bias, but I am confused about why the term “blame” keeps coming up.

I don’t “blame” people for having mental health or substance abuse problems, but I still want them to know what might be contributing. I don’t walk around looking for people to “help”, but when people come to me for help, I do the best I can, even when it’s not something “medicne” doesn’t have easy answers for. Which in my experience is most things.

With regard to health risks of “fat”, I am used to reading about it not ing terms of describing someone’s habitus, but as a risk factor, even if it is not visible. Visceral fat deposition is not usually visible, but is still a risk factor.


I never implied that it is the leading model. It is an alternative model being proposed by people who are well versed (over decades) in the science and practice of diabetes and weight management.

Actually, no. Have you read his book? It is specifically about not dropping weight by extreme low carb measures, but instead slowly increasing fat and complex carbs to fool the brain to change the set-point that usually reverses most weight loss in the long term.

That’s why his method did not catch on vs Atkins or South Beach or other “simple” low carb diets that are easy to follow just by cutting back on simplistic dietary villains – because his takes more mental and practical effort with measuring fat & complex carbs.

It is not early at all. There is extensive research and published papers on bias in actual medical treatment. Pretty sure there was a discussion of it a week or two ago on a different thread (or several), with links to research papers. Found it (there’s more above & below & on other threads you have already participated in):

But it’s easier to ignore all the research and the science, however extensive, that doesn’t simply blame fat people.

That’s what I mean by ingrained societal bias. It’s all over this board, as others have said here & in other threads that are related to the topic.

1 Like

No, as I don’t think any diet book (independent of its theory) is worth reading. I pointed out his book as it is controversial to have financial incentives to do academic research in a certain direction for which he was also quite criticized as there is a high risk of result bias

I’d be hard-pressed to find a better demonstration of ingrained bias than your unwillingness to actually read any of the many scientific articles linked here and elsewhere, but to continue to refute them.

Also a good explanation of why the bias exists in well-documented form within the medical community itself.

1 Like

I know them and have read then but that doesn’t mean there are other scientific papers which have different results - as I said before there isn’t enough data to clearly determine which model
might be more relevant (or what combination of them)