That's exactly why so many companies push employee assistance programs for mental health crisis and weight loss. They don't care if you actually get better, so long as it make you more profitable to them.
If the medications result in a society that is 10% slimmer, total passenger weight across flights would fall by about 2%.
That reduction would translate into roughly 1.5% fuel savings for airlines and a projected 4% increase in earnings per share, according to the analysis.
On one hand, I'm happy these GLP-1s work. On the other, I'd rather the US figure out diet and exercise instead injecting themselves with Gilla Monster venom and rolling the dice on long-term complications.
Pharmaceuticals are life saving for people in various conditions whether thyroid issues, achieving a body that can exercise in the first place, or fast interdiction for diseases associated with excess body fat. But yeah i agree with your point if someone's problem is their own choice in diet and exercise.
When you go off GLP-1s you generally gain all that weight back. So when they're discussed in the context of saving airlines on fuel costs it's not that far a leap from cynicism about pharmaceutical companies being pretty excited about rising popularity in a take-forever-drug.
The thing is just about every single diet drug to date has had much worse complications. Like destroying hearts, blood vessels, anal leakage. Losing weight the old school way is the best way of it's possible.
The side effects they're finding are that it unexpectedly prevents Alzheimer's symptoms and other neurodegenerative issues, influences the brain to want to drink less alcohol and smoke/vape/chew less nicotine, and helps with chronic pain.
The point, though, is that it makes metabolic changes by having people eat less. Pointing out problems with drugs that increase resting metabolic rate (so that they burn more calories without exercising) or decrease absorption of macronutrients in digestion (so that they take in fewer calories from the same food) doesn't really inform how we look at these behavior-altering and desire-altering drugs. They're losing weight by eating less, not by interrupting the relationship between eating and net caloric intake.
Agreed, but as someone whose weight has fluctuated a lot in life, I know exactly what is causing it when I've gotten overweight. Typically, I'm not moving my body enough, and probably eating too much / not eating well. If I address it, the problem gets solved. It's really that simple. I get that not everyone is in my situation where they can do that, but it's the solution for probably 90% of obesity cases. Really all you have to do is eat less carbs/ fried food and eat more fiber and protein. Exercise in any way you can. Start slow with walking and light cardio and work your way into resistance training and more intense cardio. The issue with that solution is it's hard, and a lot of people just aren't motivated enough to put in the work to achieve that goal. I'm happy that these drugs exist, but I just wish that nutrition was something we focused more on in school, and people were more knowledgeable about their bodies.
Issue is, gymbros are the worst gatekeepers. They either think they can turn everyone into a top atlete by demanding everyone to act like one, or want to "keep it a niche".
Yes, a lot of counterexamples exist. So are a lot of counterexamples to techbros, toxic gamers, etc., but when people talk about toxicity within these circles, they're not talking about the good ones, and even "gradual toxicity" also do exist sometimes.
True, fuel cost would be the same per flight, but maybe Corkyskog is getting at the airline still coming out ahead with more seats since they would sell more tickets.
Overall that would mean less flights needed to move the same number of people so it arguably does reduce fuel cost in a sense.
(This assumes that people physically take up less space as they lose weight, which, I guess for dimensions like legroom, maybe isn’t the case)
Because the overhead of weighing passengers and their luggage for every flight would completely wreck the logistics and make it both unpleasant to fly and unprofitable to operate.
Have you considered that instead of blaming the person for not fitting in the tiny teeny tiny shrinking seats, that you should actually be criticizing airlines for shrinking the seats repeatedly to where they are very small and close.
I take the train all the time. I fit just fine. I'm 5ft and plump but not obese.
I get on an airplane and my knees almost touch the seat in front of me. (Again, I'm 5ft 3")
The sides of the airplane seat push into both the sides of my hips.
My arms touch my neighbors arms. And I have narrow shoulders.
Like it's insane.
And all I hear over and over is people complaining they have to ride airplanes with fat people.
You don't hear people complaining about fat people on trains.
It's an airlines created problem.
They are laughing at us bickering about who is too fat and who should be charged double.
Here is what is going to happen.
They are going to charge anyone with hips bigger than 32 inches for two seats. And then still sell that empty seat to someone else.
Cynicism about the airline industry aside, I'd like to see how much CO2 this could prevent. Probably simple to calculate if you know how much jet fuel costs and how much CO2 it produces.
The US has always had a different fuel calculation for aircraft because of so many body positive passengers. There is even a different calculation flying the same route from the US than to the US.
I saw this in the Dutch news two days ago and almost started looking for an English-language article to post here - but i figured someone else will do it sooner than later lol. But great news though, also for the climate ;).
Would be cool if there would be a study on this, what amount of emission is saved by handing out ozempic and the likes and whether that is a good way of spending money aside from the health benefits.
No, the drug changes the habits. It quiets down food noise in the brain (not always thinking about food), and shifts people's tastes/preferences in food. It doesn't change how the body processes food, it changes how the brain wants food. So the habits change pretty quickly.
No it doesnt change habits. It makes them eat less which they even can ignore. And off it or on it they eat the same things and complain about the stomach aches.
61 Comments
morriscox@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 217d
Maybe the airlines will subsidize weight loss drugs...
REDACTED@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 216d
Funny. Airlines are famously known for sucking money out from governments for their own good while hiding profits
EDIT: You know what, I don't even know why I said this, this could be indeed something they subsidize for their own good
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 4 pts · 215d
This is going to be the weirdest perk for getting gold status on an airline's frequent flyer program.
ObscureOtter@piefed.ca · 61 pts · 216d
diablomnky666@lemmy.wtf · 9 pts · 215d
That's exactly why so many companies push employee assistance programs for mental health crisis and weight loss. They don't care if you actually get better, so long as it make you more profitable to them.
msage@programming.dev · 5 pts · 215d
But it always does.
If we actually cared about profit, we would have 3 day work weeks, plenty of vacation days, free child care, free housing and basic food staples.
And the profits would break the sky.
But it's more about control and making poors miserable than about absolute profits.
someguy3@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 217d
florge@feddit.uk · 51 pts · 217d
It's quite sad that the conclusion is more profit for shareholders.
someguy3@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 217d
Why do you hate capitalism?!? (/s)
thesohoriots@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 217d
Proportionately lower the bag fees as a thank-you and we’ll talk.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 215d
On one hand, I'm happy these GLP-1s work. On the other, I'd rather the US figure out diet and exercise instead injecting themselves with Gilla Monster venom and rolling the dice on long-term complications.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 215d
Pharmaceuticals are life saving for people in various conditions whether thyroid issues, achieving a body that can exercise in the first place, or fast interdiction for diseases associated with excess body fat. But yeah i agree with your point if someone's problem is their own choice in diet and exercise.
When you go off GLP-1s you generally gain all that weight back. So when they're discussed in the context of saving airlines on fuel costs it's not that far a leap from cynicism about pharmaceutical companies being pretty excited about rising popularity in a take-forever-drug.
Capitalism is so gross...
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 215d
No one knows the Long term complications of glp1 inhibitors.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 215d
Obesity has long term complications, too. And we know them to be bad.
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 215d
The thing is just about every single diet drug to date has had much worse complications. Like destroying hearts, blood vessels, anal leakage. Losing weight the old school way is the best way of it's possible.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 214d
The side effects they're finding are that it unexpectedly prevents Alzheimer's symptoms and other neurodegenerative issues, influences the brain to want to drink less alcohol and smoke/vape/chew less nicotine, and helps with chronic pain.
The point, though, is that it makes metabolic changes by having people eat less. Pointing out problems with drugs that increase resting metabolic rate (so that they burn more calories without exercising) or decrease absorption of macronutrients in digestion (so that they take in fewer calories from the same food) doesn't really inform how we look at these behavior-altering and desire-altering drugs. They're losing weight by eating less, not by interrupting the relationship between eating and net caloric intake.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 213d
Agreed, but as someone whose weight has fluctuated a lot in life, I know exactly what is causing it when I've gotten overweight. Typically, I'm not moving my body enough, and probably eating too much / not eating well. If I address it, the problem gets solved. It's really that simple. I get that not everyone is in my situation where they can do that, but it's the solution for probably 90% of obesity cases. Really all you have to do is eat less carbs/ fried food and eat more fiber and protein. Exercise in any way you can. Start slow with walking and light cardio and work your way into resistance training and more intense cardio. The issue with that solution is it's hard, and a lot of people just aren't motivated enough to put in the work to achieve that goal. I'm happy that these drugs exist, but I just wish that nutrition was something we focused more on in school, and people were more knowledgeable about their bodies.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 215d
Issue is, gymbros are the worst gatekeepers. They either think they can turn everyone into a top atlete by demanding everyone to act like one, or want to "keep it a niche".
Yes, a lot of counterexamples exist. So are a lot of counterexamples to techbros, toxic gamers, etc., but when people talk about toxicity within these circles, they're not talking about the good ones, and even "gradual toxicity" also do exist sometimes.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 215d
You don't need a gym to lose weight. The only thing that works is calorie reduction. You won't find that in a gym.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 215d
It's simple math, burn more than you eat. Americans take the elevator to the gym on the second floor.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 215d
Eh. Whatever gets people in the door and doing SOMETHING is fine. But you can't gym your way skinny.
Strength is made in the gym.
Abs are made in the kitchen.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 215d
By gymbro, I meant the whole fitness culture.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 21 pts · 215d
No they won't. Airlines will reduce seating space so they can cram even more cattle into the tube. That's "business" 101.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 215d
That would save them even more fuel costs.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 215d
10 20lb chunks is 200lbs. 20 10lb chunks is 200 lbs. ???
Jimb@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 215d
True, fuel cost would be the same per flight, but maybe Corkyskog is getting at the airline still coming out ahead with more seats since they would sell more tickets.
Overall that would mean less flights needed to move the same number of people so it arguably does reduce fuel cost in a sense.
(This assumes that people physically take up less space as they lose weight, which, I guess for dimensions like legroom, maybe isn’t the case)
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 214d
The devil is always in the details. Good analysis.
wieson@feddit.org · 5 pts · 215d
blackn1ght@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 215d
Well, that would reduce the emissions emmited per person though!
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 215d
Imagine the fuel cost savings if politicians would arrive in the 21. century and use more video call.
fubarx@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 215d
Imagine the airline fuel savings after gangrenous amputations.
BarticusR@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 217d
Why don't airlines charge for the combined weight of the passenger plus their luggage?
LettyWhiterock@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 216d
Because that's a terrible idea lmao
Miaou@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 215d
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 215d
Because the overhead of weighing passengers and their luggage for every flight would completely wreck the logistics and make it both unpleasant to fly and unprofitable to operate.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 217d
Very illegal
otp@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 216d
Hmm...if someone spills over onto someone else's seat, they should have to pay for a second ticket though...
finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 216d
Blame the airline for seats that are too small, not passengers for being too large.
daannii@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 216d
Fucking aye
daannii@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 216d
Have you considered that instead of blaming the person for not fitting in the tiny teeny tiny shrinking seats, that you should actually be criticizing airlines for shrinking the seats repeatedly to where they are very small and close.
I take the train all the time. I fit just fine. I'm 5ft and plump but not obese.
I get on an airplane and my knees almost touch the seat in front of me. (Again, I'm 5ft 3")
The sides of the airplane seat push into both the sides of my hips.
My arms touch my neighbors arms. And I have narrow shoulders.
Like it's insane.
And all I hear over and over is people complaining they have to ride airplanes with fat people. You don't hear people complaining about fat people on trains.
It's an airlines created problem.
They are laughing at us bickering about who is too fat and who should be charged double.
Here is what is going to happen.
They are going to charge anyone with hips bigger than 32 inches for two seats. And then still sell that empty seat to someone else.
You know that's what they will do.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 3 pts · 215d
No one wants to go back to when first class was effectively the cheapest ticket price.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 216d
If they cant fit into one seat, then yes the airline can require they buy two.
baatliwala@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 216d
Capitalism is going to help bring down the average American weight? 😭
skhayfa@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 216d
Shrinkflation or processed junk food who is going to win? 3rd player make an entrance
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 215d
Cynicism about the airline industry aside, I'd like to see how much CO2 this could prevent. Probably simple to calculate if you know how much jet fuel costs and how much CO2 it produces.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 215d
Not just jet fuel, but also savings in food production, which is a major producer of co2
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 215d
The US has always had a different fuel calculation for aircraft because of so many body positive passengers. There is even a different calculation flying the same route from the US than to the US.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 215d
FAA standard person is 170lbs/77kg. I'm sure the airlines use a better estimate though.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 215d
It won't reduce jet fuel. It just means commercial planes can carry more cargo.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 215d
Excellent point! But then wouldn't that mean fewer cargo planes? So still less fuel overall even if not on a per-plane basis.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 215d
Micro economics: Price will reduce to maximize utilization
The world we know: reduction in cost means increased profits we can funnel directly into fuel for the CEO'S private jet and super yachts.
Carbon isn't considered a cost by the wealthy and powerful.
huppakee@piefed.social · 6 pts · 217d
I saw this in the Dutch news two days ago and almost started looking for an English-language article to post here - but i figured someone else will do it sooner than later lol. But great news though, also for the climate ;).
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 217d
Great news for the climate when not only fuel required drops, but also food intake
huppakee@piefed.social · 2 pts · 217d
Would be cool if there would be a study on this, what amount of emission is saved by handing out ozempic and the likes and whether that is a good way of spending money aside from the health benefits.
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 216d
Don't even need the ozempic if overweight people could just reduce their intake
Mouarfff@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 215d
Capitalism cost a lot 🤷♀️
Cruxifux@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 217d
I am so all for affordable safe weight-loss drugs though.
arararagi@ani.social · 2 pts · 215d
For a few months right? I read that ozempic users often go back to their weight since they never changed their habits.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 215d
No, the drug changes the habits. It quiets down food noise in the brain (not always thinking about food), and shifts people's tastes/preferences in food. It doesn't change how the body processes food, it changes how the brain wants food. So the habits change pretty quickly.
Krauerking@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 214d
I know people taking it.
No it doesnt change habits. It makes them eat less which they even can ignore. And off it or on it they eat the same things and complain about the stomach aches.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 214d
What are you talking about? If they're eating less, then it's working at changing the behavior. What is there to "ignore" at that point?
Krauerking@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 214d
Because it only reduces hunger. They can ignore that they don't feel hungry and keep eating.
Also eating less for a period of time because you don't feel hunger then returning the feelings of hunger does not change behavior in long term.