I am no expert. But I think issue with these discussions is that "hormone" is quite wide area. And they have varying effects. With doping we are focusing on those that affect things like muscle growth or EPO which accelerates red blood cell production. Both which can have harmful side-effects.
With GLP-1 and others there is other effects than those. And thus probably they should not be treated as same. The reality is that discussion lacks this sort of nuance and hormone automatically means bigger muscles...
Isn't awesome how the free hand of the market starts fixing our broken food industry only after a significant portion of the country gets out from under its boot? Just love the US of A more every day.
It's a surprising correlation. I'd expect that increasing popularity of such drug would lead to an increase in amount of sugar added because a) that would make them more "tasty" b) people would become more reckless aka "I can eat more because the pill will help me avoid weight gain". (edited for clarity)
13 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 32.5 ms ] threadWouldn’t using something like this trigger anti-doping concerns if an athlete took it?
In sports, manipulating appetite or insulin pathways sets off red flags immediately.
It’s interesting to see the food industry treat the same biological mechanism mainly as a market trend rather than a medical one.
With GLP-1 and others there is other effects than those. And thus probably they should not be treated as same. The reality is that discussion lacks this sort of nuance and hormone automatically means bigger muscles...
Can anyone ELI5 why they're having this effect? Do they reduce impulsivity or make the existing foods no longer palatable?
Not aspartame or similar, just biscuits will half or one third of the sugar.
Similar or even the same product, much more sugar added in the UK. To the point it's not edible (like supermarket cakes).
Most products would taste better if they had half or third of it.
But it's not about taste, it's about dependency.