• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Global Obesity Epidemic

Some quacks are up in arms against the new weight-loss drugs.
Meet Dr. Boz (Annette Bosworth), who popped up in a YouTube short (43 sec.):
Ozempic should not be allowed for weightless! Mark my words!
Put them in a time capsule and open it in 15 years.
Her argument against Ozempic is the loss of muscle mass that accompanies the weight loss.
I tried to find out more about her and found this:
Jackley: Violations by Bosworth and Walker were 'serious, deliberate' (ArgusLeader)
Bosworth in 2012 waged a public battle against the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners to keep her medical license. She was accused of allowing a physician's assistant to practice without a license.
Bosworth kept her license after agreeing to a mentoring program that included treatment with a psychologist and psychiatrist.
A few years later, there was this, from the same article:
On Tuesday night, Annette Bosworth lost the South Dakota U.S. Senate race she spent the last year seeking.
Twelve hours later, she was arrested.
Now Bosworth faces 12 felony charges: allegations she lied on her petitions to get on the U.S. Senate ballot.
(...)
Bosworth's charges relate to signatures gathered while she was on a mission trip to the Philippines in January. She signed oaths that South Dakotans who had signed those petitions had done so in her presence, which prosecutors say is both perjury and filing false documents.
And there's her Facebook video:
Fruit is EVIL!
Those new drugs must have been a hard one to swallow for alternative dietitians ...
 
A Danish translation made me aware of this article:
Nature's Ozempic: What and how you eat can increase levels of GLP-1 without drugs (TheConversation, May 15, 2025)

It depends on not only what you eat but also on the way you eat it and the order in which you eat different items of food.
However, the impact on your appetite is far weaker than the impact of the new drugs. Even the lowest dosage of Ozempic increases GLP-1 levels more than 1,000 times more than food can do.
However, it sounds as if it might be worth a try for people who can't afford the weight-loss drugs or people who have to stop using them.
 
WARNING! Possible Ozempic side effect!

Why didn't I buy Novo Nordisk stock before this piece of news?
If an RCT can confirm this, there'll be more money in Ozempic than in Viagra!

Ozempics mulige effekt på penis går viralt (Sundhedspolitisk Tidsskrift, June 24, 2025)
Ozempic's possible effect on penis goes viral

Weight Loss Drugs Are Giving Men 'Ozempic Penis' (Vice, June 12, 2025)
Then after about seven months on Tirzepatide in my case I gained 1.5 inches in length.
Average penis size has increased - and Ozempic could be to blame, experts say (New York Post, June 8, 2025)
Men Are Claiming Ozempic, GLP-1 Meds Are Making Their Genitals Bigger (Forbes, June 16/20, 2025)

However, some urologists think that it may be an optical illusion due to weight loss.

'Ozempic Penis' Side Effect of Weight Loss Meds (The View on YouTube, June 20, 2025 - 1:03 min.)
'The View' co-hosts discuss a new side effect reported by some male users.

 
Nothing we haven't know now for some time, but it's in the news again.

American kids have become increasingly unhealthy over nearly two decades.


— Obesity rates for U.S. children 2-19 years old rose from 17% in 2007-2008 to about 21% in 2021-2023.

— A U.S. child in 2023 was 15% to 20% more likely than a U.S. child in 2011 to have a chronic condition such as anxiety, depression or sleep apnea, according to data reported by parents and doctors.

— Annual prevalence rates for 97 chronic conditions recorded by doctors rose from about 40% in 2011 to about 46% in 2023.

There is a dig at trump in there, but this started way before trump.
 
A rising obesity rate "from 17% in 2007-2008 to about 21% in 2021-2023" would include the presidencies of Obama, Trump and Biden.
I don't see this as "a dig at trump in there":
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought children's health to the forefront of the national policy conversation, unveiling in May a much-anticipated “Make America Healthy Again” report that described kids as undernourished and overmedicated, and raised concerns about their lack of physical activity. But the Trump administration's actions — including cuts to federal health agencies, Medicaid and scientific research are not likely to reverse the trend, according to outside experts who reviewed Monday’s study.
It actually points out that the trend has been there for 14 years, i.e. several presidencies, but that "the Trump administration's actions — including cuts to federal health agencies, Medicaid and scientific research — are not likely to reverse the trend."
That's not "a dig at trump in there." It's just pointing out that the same trend continues during the guys who are currently in charge.

In view of what the current administration is doing, I think this is worth pointing out:
The editorial published alongside the study said while the administration's MAHA movement is bringing welcome attention to chronic diseases, "it is pursuing other policies that will work against the interests of children.” Those include eliminating injury prevention and maternal health programs, canceling investments in a campaign addressing sudden infant death and “fueling vaccine hesitancy among parents that may lead to a resurgence of deadly vaccine-preventable diseases," authors wrote.
Officials from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Forrest said risks highlighted by the MAHA report, such as eating too much ultra-processed food, are real but miss the complex reality driving trends in children's health.
It can't have escaped your attention that RFK Jr.'s removal of artificial food dyes doesn't do much about ultra-processed food in general and that “fueling vaccine hesitancy" is already harming the health of U.S. children (and adults).
Measles tracker (NBC News)
Study suggests kids with severe COVID-19 have lasting metabolic changes (CIDRAP, June 15, 2025)
Most US pregnant women, parents of young kids don't plan to accept all recommended kids' vaccines (CIDRAP, July 17, 2025)
Only 35% to 40% of US pregnant women and parents of young children say they intend to fully vaccinate their child
 
Of course cutting the funding to certain agencies is not going to reverse the trend, but I still see that as a dig at Trump, as if more funding or no cuts would improve the situation that has not seen any relief with those agencies in the past.

I contend the massive availability of high caloric, nutritionally deficient foods along with the lack of physical activity remains the problem.
It is global, and the activity of the mentioned agencies is not going to change that.

I'm sorry I'm at a loss to offer a solution.
 
Can you offer facts that support your idea that "the massive availability of high caloric, nutritionally deficient foods along with the lack of physical activity remains the problem"?
 





There's more. Not sure if they talk about the activity thing, but surely you don't think that's not a problem?
 
Last edited:
No, I think that unhealthy eating and unhealthy inactivity are both problems.
What your links don't say is that they are the problem. In the title of the first article, "linked to" is the clue!
 
Last edited:
MAHA:
Why MAHA’s push on Coca-Cola and ice cream is ‘nutritionally hilarious’ (StatNews, July 17, 2025)
Pop quiz: What’s Coca-Cola with cane sugar and ice cream made with natural dyes?
Answer: Coca-Cola and ice cream.
(...)
“My term for this is ‘nutritionally hilarious,’” said Marion Nestle, one of the country’s foremost nutrition experts and professor emeritus at New York University. Whether Coca-Cola contains cane sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, she said, it will still contain virtually the same amount of calories and lots of sugar.
 
No, I think that unhealthy eating and unhealthy inactivity are both problems.
What your links don't say is that they are the problem. In the title of the first article, "linked to" is the clue!
Isn't that kind of like saying measles is linked to the measles virus?

When I Google " why rising childhood obesity " the AI says:

Childhood obesity is rising due to a combination of factors, including unhealthy eating habits, decreased physical activity, and environmental influences. These factors contribute to an energy imbalance where children consume more calories than they burn, leading to weight gain.

Do you think the other factors would be easier to deal with If we eliminate unhealthy eating habits and made the ultra processed foods less available?

Yes I know eliminating the the ultra processed foods would cause economic issues, but I think throwing money at the availability of healthier food would be more productive than throwing it at ineffective bureaucracies.
 
Isn't that kind of like saying measles is linked to the measles virus?
No, it is not at all like that! Measles is a virus, and it's unequivocally the one and only cause of measles. Deciding not to vaccinate your kids is a factor!

When I Google " why rising childhood obesity " the AI says:
"Childhood obesity is rising due to a combination of factors, including unhealthy eating habits, decreased physical activity, and environmental influences. These factors contribute to an energy imbalance where children consume more calories than they burn, leading to weight gain."
Have you tried googling "why measles"?
"Measles is a highly contagious viral illness caused by the measles virus, spread through respiratory droplets from coughing and sneezing. It's easily transmitted via close contact or by touching contaminated surfaces. Factors increasing the risk of measles include not being vaccinated, traveling to areas with outbreaks, or having a weakened immune system."
Highlighted by Google, not me!

Do you think the other factors would be easier to deal with If we eliminate unhealthy eating habits and made the ultra processed foods less available?
We are not talking about unhealthy eating habits. We are talking about what makes people obese. Some people can eat ultra-processed foods without getting obese. Other people can't - for whatever reason. The ultra-processed foods may still be unhealthy - for whatever reason. A case in point that I have referred to often in this thread: Trans fats (Wikipedia). There is no doubt that they are incredibly unhealthy. There is also no doubt that they contribute to obesity. Virtually eliminating them from the diet appears to have worked wonders for people's cardiovascular health, in particular. But it is not as if trans fats made everybody obese. That's the difference between a cause and a factor. And in the case of obesity, there are not only obesity-generating factors. There are also obesity-mitigating factors.

Like everybody else, I used to live in world full of trans fats, and yet I didn't get fat, but I don't know why I didn't. Was it because I exercised enough to keep it at bay? Maybe, but I also didn't get fat in periods of my life when I didn't exercise much.
Remember: This question is complicated! (However, I do know that it probably wasn't because I have good jeans! :) )

Yes I know eliminating the ultra processed foods would cause economic issues, but I think throwing money at the availability of healthier food would be more productive than throwing it at ineffective bureaucracies.
You appear to share an awful lot of ideas with RFK Jr.! Coincidence?!
Otherwise, why would you come up with a comparison of healthier food with ineffective bureaucracies? Has anybody ever claimed that ineffective bureaucracies (or any kind of bureaucracies) help people slim down? It's the kind of statement that nobody can disagree with. Nobody is in favor of "ineffective bureaucracies."

That is why the argument is so popular among fascists and similar 'populists' when they want to get rid of regulations put in place to protect people from ruthless exploiters. It's cheaper for the manufacturers of food if they don't have to abide by the rules of hygiene and food additives. Manufacturers of fast food didn't use transfats because it was healthy, but because it made the production of food a little easier in some respects, which benefitted the bottom line. Manufacturers of cigarettes don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about their products killing people. In fact, it annoys the hell out them when it is pointed out. Transfats and tobacco are rather slow killers, so the people who make and sell the ◊◊◊◊ don't give a damn.

And they always find ways of getting around advertising bans:
Elon Musk's X is full of stuff like this:
craving food? no i actually think you just need a good old cigarette
PROBLEM SOLVED
Image

And another one:
Look at them all thin and happy, just living in the moment and not getting worked up about anything. Do you know what their secret to a happy, in shape life was? I’ll tell you:
Every single person in this picture smoked at least a pack of cigarettes a day
Image

You can forbid advertising for poisonous products, but this isn't advertising, is it?!
No, it's free speech, and free speech is good! Free speech, i.e. the right to tell lies to make a buck, is a human right, and you are a radical-left fascist communist if you take away my right to do that. Only ineffective bureaucracies would consider doing that!

By the way, let me know when RFK Jr., Trump, MAHA and MAGA start "throwing money at the availability of healthier food."
So far, they seem to be busy doing the opposite:
Congress Passes Mega Bill that Harms School Meal Programs (School Nutrition Association, July 3, 2025)
 
Last edited:
You appear to share an awful lot of ideas with RFK Jr.! Coincidence?!
That alone leaves me with nothing more to say to you .
( P.S. You seem to have totally missed my point about measles, but I will assume that was a communication failure on my part. )

However..

In my opinion, the high availability of cheap ultra processed, loaded with sugar foods and sugar drinks are the prime driver of the Global obesity epidemic.

The only way to prove that, would be to make them unavailable, but that's not going to happen.

So here we are.
 
Last edited:
That alone leaves me with nothing more to say to you .
( P.S. You seem to have totally missed my point about measles, but I will assume that was a communication failure on my part. )
However..
In my opinion, the high availability of cheap ultra processed, loaded with sugar foods and sugar drinks are the prime driver of the Global obesity epidemic. The only way to prove that, would be to make them unavailable, but that's not going to happen.
So here we are.
I think that you will agree with most of what this guy (these guys) say(s):
IntegralAnswers on X, Sep 30, 2025
1/ Dr. Kevin Hall’s work reshaped nutrition science: ultra-processed foods (UPFs) make us eat more and gain weight—even when calories, sugar, fat & salt are matched. His NIH trials changed the debate. Here’s the story.
But notice his conclusion:
6/ Epidemiology highlights:
Strongly harmful: sugary drinks, processed meats
Neutral: sweets/desserts
Some benefit: certain breads/cereals
Not all UPFs are equal—some may be reformulated to be healthier.
7/ Policy debate:
– Purists: eliminate UPFs, return to cooking.
– Realists: reformulate UPFs (healthier, affordable, convenient).
In the U.S., with ~60% of calories from UPFs, total elimination is unrealistic.
8/ Hall: future food systems will need UPFs to feed the world sustainably.
The challenge isn’t banning them—it’s engineering UPFs that are healthy, equitable, and profitable* without driving disease.

In other words, it isn't UPF in and of itself that's harmful. It's very unhealthy stuff like (until fairly recently) trans fats added to (some) UPFs that makes it unhealthy.

* I disagree with this because the UPF-producing industry's interest in making UPF profitable is what results in adding unhealthy ingredients and preservatives in the first place. Trans fats weren't added to UPFs because consumers demanded it.
 
We agree on this.
IntegralAnswers aren't quite happy with this even though they more or less confirm it but insists on calling it "functionality":
DannSim on X, Sep 30, 2025
When you write about "engineering UPFs that are healthy, equitable, and profitable without driving disease," are you aware that the attempt to make UPFs profitable is what made the manufacturers of UPFs use extremely unhealthy ingredients like trans fats in the first place?
IntegralAnswers on X, Sep 30, 2025
1/ Profit mattered, but TFAs were adopted mainly for functionality: cheap (!!!) oils became shelf-stable, spreadable, and frying-stable.
It is the only reason why products with hydrogenated oils stayed on the shelves long after it was discovered how detrimental they were to people's health. They only disappeared when the industry was threatened with bans or with having to tell consumers that they were using trans fats.
 
About lipoprotein metabolism?
Risks and burdens of incident dyslipidaemia in long COVID: a cohort study (The Lancet, Vol. 11, issue 2, Feb 2023)

Maybe this is relevant, too:
Laura Miers on X, Nov 1, 2024
2023: “Blood lipids should be checked as part of cardiovascular risk evaluation after recovery from Covid, &, if necessary, lipid-lowering medication initiated or intensified.”
Yeah, so this isn’t happening. For 4 years we’ve heard people must be carefully monitored after recovery, but to this day they still aren’t. After my first Covid infection in 2020, my cholesterol was SKY HIGH, despite never experiencing high cholesterol before. No one wanted to hear it though, & so we blame individuals & their lifestyles for all their new medical complications, instead of the virus. And then we wonder why people are dying en masse.

Home / Vol 6 (January 30, 2021) / Altered lipid profile in patients with COVID-19 infectionOriginal ArticleAltered lipid profile in patients with COVID-19 infectionVincenzo Roccaforte1,2, Massimo Daves3, Giuseppe Lippi4, Marta Spreafico5, Claudio Bonato11Clinical Pathology Laboratory, Alessa



Science News: COVID-19 fattens up our body's cells to fuel its viral takeoverCompounds that cut off the flow of fatty fuel stop the virus from replicating in the labDate:June 28, 2022Source:DOE/Pacific Northwest National LaboratorySummary:The virus that causes COVID-19 takes over the body's fat-processing system and boosts cellular triglycerides as it causes disease.



Elsevier: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023 Jan 6;11(2):68–69. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00389-8Blood lipids after COVID-19 infectionPaul Durrington aAuthor informationArticle notesCopyright and License informationPMCID: PMC9822273  PMID: 36623516



Scientific reports: Association between lipid profile and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patientsLuis Antonio Ochoa-Ramírez, Alberto Kousuke De la Herrán Arita, …Juan Fidel Osuna-Ramos Show authorsScientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 12139 (2024) Cite this article


Vipin M. Vashishta on X, Nov 1, 2024
A NEW study, involving more than 200,000 adults, found that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a 29% increase in risk for developing dyslipidemia, a condition involving abnormal lipid (fat) levels in the blood
1/
Image
Seniors and people with type 2 diabetes were even more strongly affected, experiencing an approximately two-fold increased risk for developing dyslipidemia, which is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack and stroke. 2/
Given the extent of the pandemic, this increase in dyslipidemia risk is a cause for concern around the world. Researchers advise people to have their lipid levels monitored regularly and to consult with their HCP about ways to treat dyslipidemia, if detected 3/
How COVID-19 might have increased the incidence of dyslipidemia remains unclear. One possible explanation is a finding that SARS-CoV-2 disrupts the function of endothelial cells, which line the inside of blood vessels and play a critical role in regulating blood lipids. 4/

Image

A six-year study in a real-world population reveals an increased incidence of dyslipidemia during COVID-19 (Journal of Clinical Investigation, Sep 12, 2024)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom