170 Million Kids and Teens Ozempic / Mounjaro

The WHO has put out its first worldwide recommendations on childhood obesity while numbers keep climbing. Rates for ages five to nineteen have gone from two percent to about eight percent since 1990.

That total feels low at first but it covers only obesity rather than all overweight cases so it adds up better. Still, maybe one percent of those kids have families who could pay for the branded versions, so they won't be a practical fix until prices drop a lot. Handing out unregulated versions to children would be an ethical mess.

This looks open to misuse. Even though it is meant only for obesity cases I doubt it will stay limited in practice. I can picture normal-weight teens being given these shots to chase unrealistic thinness, which risks insufficient calories during growth years and affects development beyond just body image worries. I was an overweight kid myself and ended up with serious body-image problems that lasted. Whether weekly shots for weight would have been better or worse than repeated fad diets is hard to say. In the end it comes down to the doctor, parents, and child. If the data shows it is safe for growing bodies then my only remaining issue is ethical.

I am not convinced this is a good idea at all.

Interesting. I wonder what the dosing schedule would look like for kids.

That is a huge number of overweight kids whose parents are not doing a good job.

I am really torn. I keep thinking about parents pushing these shots on perfectly normal-weight daughters just because they think the girls are too big. I hope it stays very hard for families to get them, but the unregulated market makes that unlikely. It is sad that kids might need them, that parents might misuse them, and that they could replace actual nutrition and health guidance. It feels pretty heartbreaking overall.

This would have changed everything for me growing up. Constant thoughts about food have been a lifelong issue. My mother could have chosen better foods but she did cook and it was not all processed. Still, what do you do with a child whose mind is always demanding more to eat? My early years would have looked very different if this option had existed. The downside is that most cases will probably involve parents who keep giving processed food because it is convenient. Even so the kids would likely have a better quality of life and might even build a healthier relationship with eating. While misuse will happen in some families, the overall effect should still be strongly positive for the majority who receive it.

Just to be clear, my worry centers on kids not consuming sufficient amounts, which makes it tougher to obtain needed nutrients from smaller portions. The aim is addressing obesity without ending up with malnourished children.

When fresh vegetables or fruit hit your tongue and come across as flavorless, there's no desire to eat them. That loss of taste sensitivity from heavily processed items really happens, at least in my own case.

It's reasonable to think GLP1s can be adjusted so hunger drops only moderately, creating a milder calorie gap and lowering deficiency chances. Using one standard starting amount for all adults already seems questionable, and even more so with children. These official guidelines for either group don't sit well. Enough data exists on how differently people respond that the advice ought to be updated.

One issue stems from how things work in the US, where companies can earn big without handling the downsides they create. Examples include tobacco, oil, and processed snacks. Someone in the thread recently pushed for personal responsibility instead. Holding people accountable when they get hooked on foods made to be addictive feels unfair.