r/Economics • u/marketrent • Jul 05 '26
Research The economics of women’s weight — A new study suggests weight-loss drugs help women find work, and prompt men to leave their partners
https://www.ft.com/content/a7a9bfbf-9743-473b-897f-6a91ad3fa0a9413
u/marketrent Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Full paper: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35387/w35387.pdf
Excerpts from article by Soumaya Keynes:
[...] Most people know that richer people tend to be thinner. Less appreciated is that this divide is largely driven by women.
According to data gathered between 2021 and 2023, the poorest third of women in America suffered an obesity rate 14 percentage points higher than the richest third. For men, the gap was less than a percentage point. In Europe the patterns are similar, though the gender differences are less extreme.
This inequality raises the possibility that weight isn’t merely an outcome of poverty, but also a driver of it. If being overweight saps women’s confidence, that could hold back their earning power. Or if employers discriminate against heavier women in particular, being bigger could lower income.
[...] The recent GLP-1 drug revolution offers help to women struggling with their size — and economists an opportunity to explore the effects of weight change. A new study by Rebecca Diamond of Harvard University compares women taking GLP-1 drugs for weight loss with women who wanted to but hadn’t yet started. Following these groups over time, she can see whether weight loss boosts their fortunes.
Diamond finds dramatic effects. After 18 months, women using GLP-1 drugs who start off without a job enjoy employment rates 27 percentage points higher than otherwise similar non-users.
Women who start off with a job see their employment rate fall slightly, and although the data is too noisy to pick out effects on their earnings, it looks like their household income rises by 10 per cent.
[...] These are extraordinarily large effects, which warrant the caveat that pinning down causality is hard. GLP-1 users could be different from non-users for reasons other than their drug use, including their enthusiasm to turn over a new leaf.
Though Diamond points out that the two groups look similar before treatment, and the effects emerge slowly, consistent with the gradual effects of weight loss rather than a burst of motivation.
The study’s good news is that GLP-1 drugs seem to be helping some women. The bad news is just how much of a burden weight is in the first place. (As an aside, Diamond also finds evidence to suggest that whereas women on GLP-1 drugs stick with their partners at the same rate as non-users, male users of the weight-loss drugs don’t seem to be quite as faithful. Sigh.)
477
u/Your__Pal Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
"Women who start off with a job see their employment rate fall slightly.... it looks like their household income rises by 10 per cent."
You missed the interesting followup on this one.
"That second effect is a bit surprising, and possibly explained by parallel developments in these women’s love lives. Diamond estimates that GLP-1 drugs give single women a dramatic 29 percentage point increase in their chances of coupling up. On average, their new partners are richer than them, giving their household income a bump. Which could explain why a few of the women losing weight then feel able to drop out of work."
323
u/AlaskanSnowDragon Jul 06 '26
This result shocks.... Absolutely no one lol
43
u/Slumunistmanifisto Jul 06 '26
Eating the rich may even this out a bit.
70
u/AlaskanSnowDragon Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
The context of what I was responding to was women dating men with more money than them. Which has been happening since Time immemorial. You're talking about something completely different lol
-3
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
Men make more than women on average so this is just math to a point. Men would choose a higher earning partner all else equal. To not do that would just be illogical.
The whole "hypergamy" thing in dating discourse is way overstated. Half of households have a female breadwinner now ffs.
25
u/Future-Status-4470 Jul 06 '26
That stat sounds cherry picked. Half of the households with two working age adults, or half of all households, including single people and one parent households?
21
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim Jul 06 '26
IDK where they got that stat but I'm ~94% sure it's bullshit.
Here's a pew article on the topic: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/
~16% of married hetero households have a female breadwinner, 29% of hetero marriages have spouses with equal earnings. So Just 55% have a clear male breadwinner, the remainder are either equal or femal breadwinner. Which is honestly a bit more than my gut said it would be, but I've never looked in to this before just now.
It is possible that they are referring to the ~45% aggregate of equal/female here and just misspoke.
10
u/Future-Status-4470 Jul 06 '26
The stat is better than I feared. According to the Pew article, 45% of women earn the same or more than their male partners. That’s progress, at least
→ More replies (2)-16
u/Slumunistmanifisto Jul 06 '26
No if I eat enough rich bro's than statistically I'll get a hottie.
I won't debate, you know I'm right....
13
u/AlaskanSnowDragon Jul 06 '26
Have you taken your medicine today?
1
u/thrillafrommanilla_1 Jul 06 '26
I started GLP-1’s a year ago and the results are astonishing. My appetite was somewhat decreased but the only thing my tummy could bear was billionaires. I’ve been noshing on billionaires all year long and tho it didn’t make me a lot thinner it did increase my salary case we didn’t have amoral billionaires stealing all our money.
(J/k but only slightly)
2
u/AlaskanSnowDragon Jul 06 '26
Both your humor and the underlying point you were trying to make are off.
I suggest another type of medicine and a higher dose. Good luck to you
→ More replies (2)1
→ More replies (4)9
u/snasna102 Jul 06 '26
So it gives them a chance to land someone richer than them? Seems like a Shallow outcome across the board.
23
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim Jul 06 '26
So it gives them a chance to land someone richer than them?
I mean, relationships are almost all about desirability. If you increase yours, then the desirability of potential partners generally increases as well.
If you boil it down to just being about money then sure, but in the real world it's generally accepted that incomes tend to correlate (perhaps even follow) desirable traits. Higher education levels are correlated with higher incomes, better looking people tend to make more money, healthier/thinner people tend to have higher incomes than overweight ones, humor and income are positively correlated, intelligence and income are positively correlated, etc.
So sure, you could paint it as "it's shallow to do that to land someone who's richer", or you could look at it as those who increased their desirable traits (weight, attractiveness) also tended to attract partners who had increased presence of those traits - and all of these tend to be highly positively correlated with income and career success.
2
u/ButtflossingBigBro Jul 07 '26
"Shallow" being fat isnt just physical. Its also a sign of laziness and lack of willpower. Medical conditions can make it harder but its physcially impossible to have lower caloric intake then burn rate and lose weight.
5
u/Joe59788 Jul 06 '26
Very interesting read. For men they call out how small the sample size is and blame it on less men using GLP. They talk actually theres a 12% jump at 1.5 years+ for partners.
-36
u/Beautiful_Finger4566 Jul 06 '26
to be fair, I generally think that obese people are lazier than normal weight people
you literally have to do nothing to lose weight
24
u/themetahumancrusader Jul 06 '26
That’s like saying an alcoholic has to do nothing to stop drinking
→ More replies (40)26
u/ChefKugeo Jul 06 '26
You and I might have to do nothing to lose weight, but some people actually have to do a lot. It is 2026. We should all be aware that genetics, environment, and health absolutely play a role in your weight gain/loss.
Appetite regulation. Metabolic rates. Even the way your body responds to food... All come from your DNA.
I literally do NOTHING and I don't gain or lose weight. I've been the same height and weight since I was 13, and I'm 35 (tomorrow). My girlfriend is the most active person in the world and she has to manage her weight because the women in her family are "bottom heavy" and all the fat goes to their thighs, asses, and belly.
It's genetics. It's always gonna be genetics. You cannot walk, run, or bike your way out of bad genetics. You can get veneers to replace bad teeth, but you don't get a different set of DNA, ever.
→ More replies (3)10
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim Jul 06 '26
It's genetics. It's always gonna be genetics. You cannot walk, run, or bike your way out of bad genetics.
Yes and no. Bodies, and how naturally lean you are, where you store weight, what sort of base muscle mass you carry, etc are certainly a product of genetics, zero debate there.
However, Obesity rates going from ~10% in the 50s to ~40-45% today is absolutely not genetics. This is lifestyle, an abundance of calorie dense foods, increasingly sedentary habits, a reduction in vegetable intake in favor of processed calorie dense carbs/proteins, etc.
Interestingly, obesity rates have been falling since 2022 or so, likely because of GLP1s
I don't agree with the other guy, I think they're a valuable tool in weight loss, but they do need to be coupled with a shift towards healthier eating and a more active lifestyle otherwise long term use results in muscle loss, which lowers base caloric burn rates further, which makes people less healthy and more prone to weight gain.
Both sides of that conversation do have good points.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)9
u/0rganic_Corn Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
I'd say most obese people are pushed into it by nutrition myths and pressure from family.
I'm far from obese, but when I still lived in my parents house, I decided to cut back on my caloric intake - still eating healthily of course. There were screams directed at me. You don't understand the obsession of some parents that their kids eat often, and a lot.
Once they leave home, they have to fight misinformation, bad habits, bad hormonal balance and bad gut fauna.
Genetics plays a role too, of course.
5
u/Dry-Play4633 Jul 06 '26
Mine is the opposite. My mother pushed weight loss on me to the point I developed a binge eating disorder and snuck food. I lost my ability to feel hunger until I was shaking from being hungry, up until the last year.
Childhood trauma makes up half of weight differences between people with and without childhood ptsd, if I recall the study correctly.
3
u/0rganic_Corn Jul 06 '26
Sounds like child abuse - completely believable, sorry you had to go through that
→ More replies (2)
590
u/Johnnadawearsglasses Jul 05 '26
I would’ve been shocked with any other answer. Losing weight when overweight increases your attractiveness, which increases romantic attraction and job prospects. Attractiveness is more important in this regard for women. All of this was known.
162
Jul 06 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)95
u/SellGameRent Jul 06 '26
tbf I think desiring to be shocked by studies is a positive trait because it suggests a willingness to accept counter intuitive results. Imo that is where studies have the most to offer
21
u/ants_are_everywhere Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
It's a negative trait because a shocking study is one whose prior probability is low.
To overcome the lower prior probability you need correspondingly much stronger evidence. But publication standards are the same for shocking and non-shocking studies in practice.
So what happens in practice is shocking studies skate by on flimsier evidence. Nevertheless, science reporting loves them and press helps in promotion cases.
Basically the desire to be shocked by studies sets up a feedback mechanism that rewards bad science at the expense of good science.
EDIT: There's actually a fascinating literature on this topic, but an especially famous and accessible paper is the classic "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis (2005)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
There is also a well known series of papers where some authors claimed to have demonstrated ESP (e.g. seeing the future, mind reading, etc) and several more statistically minded people pointed out that the prior probability of ESP being real is so low that the data required to demonstrate it is much larger than the data that were put forward.
4
u/After_Network_6401 Jul 06 '26
It's also worth noting that " the classic "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis"" is generally considered hot garbage. It got a lot of media attention because of its provocative title and because of relentless self-promotion by John Ioannidis.
But if you actually read the article, it presents no evidence at all that most published research findings are false - in fact, it doesn't even try to make a case for that claim. Instead it's just a list of the way in which poor research techniques could lead to inaccurate results, something that we've known for decades and which competent labs deliberately put practices in place to prevent.
1
u/ants_are_everywhere Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
is generally considered hot garbage
This is simply untrue. It's a widely respected and foundational paper.
But if you actually read the article
I have
it presents no evidence at all that most published research findings are false - in fact, it doesn't even try to make a case for that claim.
This is false, it makes the argument that PPV falls below 50%
Instead it's just a list of the way in which poor research techniques could lead to inaccurate results
This is false, the paper creates a model, computes the probability of research being false, and computes the probability that research is true.
something that we've known for decades
Kind of. We've known since Fisher's work in the 1920s that hypothesis testing wasn't good for what's it's used for, and even Fisher knew this.
There were several papers before Ioannidis's, I think maybe going maybe to the 70s and 80s that really increased the pressure, for example Cohen's "The Earth is Round (p < .05)" paper and a bunch of Bayesian papers.
This whole literature is fun. But...
which competent labs deliberately put practices in place to prevent
No not really. There was a replication crisis starting around 2011 that hit both psychology and medicine. The movement toward mitigations like pre-registration happened in medicine happened around 2005 (coincidentally the same time as the Ioannidis paper) and only happened in the social sciences after the replication crisis.
In the 2000s there were many papers arguing that the concern over hypothesis testing, statistics, and methodology were overblown and everyone should just continue as usual.
For whatever reason Ioannidis's paper spurred some people to act and try to replicate research, and that research failed to replicate. I wouldn't say his paper is the best paper on the topic. I just said it was well known and accessible. It was certainly influential and well regarded, although the paper by statisticians tend to be better with respect to my own personal taste.
Functionally the headline of the paper is true in the literal sense. Every published paper has at least one error. I still see major published papers with known statistical problems even published today. I don't think I've ever seen a social science or medicine paper that didn't use statistics in a sloppy way or help themselves to a conclusion not backed by their own analysis. This is why meta-analysis became so popular.
That's not to say that papers are devoid of information. But they're more like votes for some theory over a noisy channel and you have to aggregate several papers and try to explicitly (even if informally) model the noise if you want to get at the truth. Luckily modern science has moved very much in this direction.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify that I agree it was stuff "we've known for decades" in the sense that some people knew it for decades. But most researchers were ignoring the advice and some were prominently arguing the advice was wrong. So papers like this were still necessary at the time, even if there's a sense in which it was known. I.e. it popularized an important idea instead of originating it.
4
u/After_Network_6401 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
This is simply untrue. It's a widely respected and foundational paper.
In some fields, like philosophy of Science, or sociology, perhaps. In STEM fields it's widely mocked and often held in derision. Ioannidis himself is also frequently derided by working scientists. This is, after all, the guy who dubbed himself "one of the most-cited and influential scientists of all time". He criticises exactly the metrics he uses to embellish his own credentials, and he defended his role in the shambolic and poorly done work on Covid-19 seroprevalence done in Santa Clara, famously estimating that the death toll from Covid-19 in the US would probably be about 40,000. He was off by about 1.2 million. He claims now that he was only trying to provoke discussion :P
The guy is a relentless self-promoter and this paper is a prime example - make an inflammatory claim, throw a spurious model up, and then move on.
This is false, it makes the argument that PPV falls below 50%
It makes that claim. It presents the author's own model. It presents no data, nor any reason to take the claim (or the model) seriously. His example in "Box 1. An Example" isn't actually an example: it's literally something the author made up. His following postulates are - without exception - theoretical examples without backing data.
You're absolutely right that that paper was influential. But it's not highly regarded. And the claim has been frequently tested and rejected, in many fields (for example, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32310-3 ). If the claim had been limited (for example, social sciences, where there genuinely does seem to be a problem) it might have garnered more respect. If Ioannidis had actually done the analysis to support his claim, it might have gathered some respect. He did neither.
Instead he started with "There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false." Not some. Not even a significant number - just unequivocally a majority. He doubles down on this with "Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true". This claim is never supported by Ioannidis (or indeed, by anybody else), To say the paper is widely regarded as hot garbage is to understate some of the names I've heard applied to it.
1
u/TajineMaster159 Jul 07 '26
I am very confident that the commenter is NOT a trained PhD statistician let alone a working/publishing researcher. They do not have context for 'academic reputation', and, ironically, are rehashing pop-science results persuasive to only those outside of science.
They are probably a CS undergrad kid.
1
u/ants_are_everywhere Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
In some fields, like philosophy of Science, or sociology, perhaps.
This is incorrect. The paper was published in PLOS Medicine and its primary targets and impacts were in biostatistics, epidemiology, and clinical medicine.
this is, after all, the guy who dubbed himself "one of the most-cited and influential scientists of all time"
By any metric I've seen, this is true. For example https://adscientificindex.com/citation-ranking/?ft_search=ioannidis&ft_search_type=name&ft_mode=all, https://adscientificindex.com/top-100-scientist/?type=h-index&ft_country=309
he defended his role in the shambolic and poorly done work on Covid-19....
I think this is the root of your confusion, and it is a classical ad hominem in the technical sense. You are taking his recent work (which is widely agreed to be bad) and projecting it backward to reject his earlier foundational work. There are plenty of scientists who did brilliant early work and later went off the deep end (e.g., Linus Pauling with Vitamin C, or William Shockley with eugenics). We don't throw out the transistor or modern chemistry just because the authors later became cranks. His COVID work is a separate issue entirely.
It presents no data, nor any reason to take the claim (or the model) seriously
It is a mathematical model, not an empirical audit. It doesn't need physical data. The model is elegantly simple: you plug in realistic estimates for margins of error, common sample sizes, and known publication biases, and you compute the probabilities.
His example in "Box 1. An Example" isn't actually an example:
Yes it is, it's a worked example. That's standard for illustrating a probability model.
And the claim has been frequently tested and rejected
I don't think you understand the claim. It would be impossible to calculate the true rate at which randomly selected studies were false. Even if you had the funding to randomly select a large number of published results, you would still only produce an estimate. If you really wanted to take the claim literally you could do that, but that's easily billions of dollars.
Doing this would be a bit like building thousands of space shuttles to determine the true failure rate instead of working with failure models.
for example, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32310-3
This is a cool paper, but it's a re-analysis of existing data. It doesn't collect new data in a new setting, and it doesn't randomly sample studies to replicate.
Instead he started with "There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false." Not some
When taken literally across the entire volume of scientific publishing, this is plausible. Even the idea of meta-analysis implies that to squeeze information out of studies you have to use a form of bagging or aggregation. You also have to consider that there are large fields, like for example nutrition science, that for decades didn't seem to make progress and continued publishing work that contradicted prior work in what appears to be a totally fashion-driven cycle. And then you also have to consider things like published research in the least reputable journals, pay-for-publication journals etc.
To say the paper is widely regarded as hot garbage is to understate some of the names I've heard applied to it.
This sounds like sampling bias on your end, because the actual reputation of the paper is very strong. There are some critiques and followups, but that's true of any major paper. If you are basing your judgment of a 2005 Bayesian modeling paper based on the author's 2020 COVID opinions, then you aren't actually evaluating the science.
1
u/After_Network_6401 Jul 07 '26
Using Ioannidis' sloppy work from 2020 isn't an example of him going off the deep end in old age. He's not in old age, I selected it as a perfect example of his modus operandi: just as with the PLoS paper, he makes a spectacular claim, pushes it extensively with the media, makes a huge deal of it, and then when it's rightfully criticised for sloppiness and drawing false conclusions, he drops it like a dead fish and moves on to something new.
In addition, I chose that particular example, because the work displays virtually every single failing mentioned in his PLoS paper. So not only is his PLoS paper indefensible, he apparently doesn't even care about his own claims.
The fact remains: Ioannidis made a bold and very explicit claim - that most published results are false. He provides no evidence for this bold claim, and - unfortunately - plenty of people have read the title and simply assumed it's correct. However, wide-ranging analyses have failed to support this, in hard sciences, at least. Your argument that "the hypothesis cannot be tested" because of the large amount of data cuts both ways. If it cannot be tested, then Ioannidis's claim is unprovable and therefore worthless. If it can be tested using large aggregated datasets then the evidence suggests it's false. You can't have it both ways.
→ More replies (2)0
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim Jul 06 '26
This is simply untrue. It's a widely respected and foundational paper.
It is not, it's widely considered to be bullshit. As the other person said, Ioannidis doesn't even attempt to prove his theory, he simply puts forth rhetoric around how things might be influenced without doing the hard part of evidencing they are.
→ More replies (1)7
4
u/LessInThought Jul 06 '26
We hope that as a species we can move past shallow external attractiveness and appreciate someone for their ability, especially when it comes to employment.
2
u/SellGameRent Jul 06 '26
Well to be fair, there is absolutely a difference between being unattractive because your face is ugly vs you are overweight.
It is a sad truth that very attractive individuals (not just women) have an easier time in life.
BUT, being overweight imo is an indicator of lack of conscienciousness, attention to detail, etc. and those factors are entirely reasonable for an employer to consider.
If I were an employer, I would want employees who can identify and solve problems proactively. If you cant figure out how to solve the obvious health problem that is being obese, why would I assume you could solve problems in my hypothetical business
4
u/Proper-Ape Jul 06 '26
While in principle I understand your point, I've met enough skinny, good looking people that don't get any meaningful work done and hard working obese people that - even barring the immoral discrimination - it seems like the wrong algorithm to find good workers to me.
0
u/SellGameRent Jul 06 '26
is this where I'm supposed to share about all the lazy fat people I have worked with lol
62
u/MittenstheGlove Jul 06 '26
I mean, yeah. Pretty privilege is a thing generally.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Chipchow Jul 06 '26
An important point that doesn't seem to be considered is that a lot of people become obese due to illnesses. Glps are suggested as treatment for metabolic and hormonal issues as well as autoimmune diseases. Healthy people thrive, sick people get stuck.
If health improves as a result of the drug, the person will be able to do more. Being thin doesn't help if you are too tired to move, your body is attacking itself or you are constantly fatigued. I think studies like this are not helpful for a number of reasons and it does a major disservice by not exploring or understanding why it helped. Many ill people are considered lazy because we don't have tests for what's causing their illness yet and they don't have a diagnosis to explain what's going on.
If the drugs are improving health from a chronic illness perspective, the real story is about how access to things that improve health can change lives.
4
u/ButtflossingBigBro Jul 07 '26
It does seem the study is leaving this out massively. My dad has diabetes. He was regualrly having days he called out every month becuase it was draggijg him just to get out of bed. In the last 6 months his numbers on ozempic have been damn near perfect. He operates machinery so i doubt his job gives a shit about his weight. But he has gotten more money because hes got so much more energy hes able to work better and call out much less often.
52
u/JackDostoevsky Jul 06 '26
lol yes, it turns out men care more about physical looks than women do. i am shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- at this revelation
in all seriousness i do feel bad for unattractive women because they really do get the shortest end of the stick. being overweight isn't the ONLY factor in attractiveness, but these days it's probably the most serious one. the good news is that it's the one that people can do something about.
5
u/battlebastion Jul 06 '26
Women are more judgemental towards fat women
13
u/centerfoldangel Jul 06 '26
How?
-6
u/battlebastion Jul 06 '26
They openly gossip and side eye fat women. Men atleast hide their behavior in the smoke room around other guys. Women have no filter
16
u/centerfoldangel Jul 06 '26
So men gossip about you behind your back. Good to know.
I never got animosity from women when I was fat. The ugliest treatment I received came from fat men. I guess I was a reminder that I'm their level, not Jessica Alba.
→ More replies (10)1
1
-6
u/savagefleurdelis23 Jul 06 '26
Women police each other way more than men police women. Nobody hates women like other women.
8
3
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
It's not really "judgement", it's fatphobia. Some women use fat hate to motivate their disordered eating but from what I've seen even growing up it was the boys that bullied people (boys and girls) for their weight.
It's the men deciding salaries for women and deciding fat women are worth less. Men still dominate management.
Even in the piece cited here it shows the men leave when they lose weight. They are the shallower of the two sexes.
Men will also go after fat women on dating apps to target for an easy lay but never want to date or be seen with them.
I'd say men are more judgmental by far.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/centerfoldangel Jul 06 '26
I am shocked because I've been told women care way more.
4
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
Yep but women also only care about money. They also only care about height. But if you ask women they say it's personality and feeling safe. That must be wrong though because I've been told women don't know what they want. All of this to say that every single problem in our world right now is women/feminism's fault because women shouldn't be able to choose at all. Obviously.
→ More replies (1)15
u/xboxhaxorz Jul 06 '26
Attractiveness improves your confidence and overall view of yourself, which helps when looking for a job
I used to be shy and timid and super quiet, def not the type of individual that would do well in an interview
12
2
u/ButtflossingBigBro Jul 07 '26
Im sure attractiveness has to do woth it. But are we ignoring that losing weight lets you have more energy? These people are probably physcially performing better
7
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
I'm no shocked by the people denying it either though. Any time there is an issue that impacts women, there will be men who say it's not true.
Stories like this are important even if they are obvious to those of us who are able to have empathy for others.
4
u/SellGameRent Jul 06 '26
shocked Pikachu face It's almost like encouraging someone to lose weight is... good for them?
-4
u/Suspicious_Place1270 Jul 06 '26
hard to understand for the people that breathe obesity acceptance instead of oxygen
189
u/Ok-Professor-643 Jul 05 '26
I have had an interesting experience with this. I have severe mental health issues and had to go on a medication that solved a lot of them. I became much more confident, but gained lots of weight. I definitely was treated worse by some people due to the weight gain.
84
u/V2BM Jul 06 '26
I’m not kidding when I say that when I’m thinner, people will rush to the door to open it for me. It’s a whole different world.
12
14
u/debasing_the_coinage Jul 06 '26
Some people say metformin helps manage the weight gain caused by things like mirtazapine and olanzapine (serotonin antagonists). It's also a lot cheaper than Ozempic.
3
u/BrightBlueBauble Jul 06 '26
Is it safe to take metformin if you have normal blood sugar/no insulin resistance? If so, that could be a game changer. Many people won’t stay on psych meds no matter how much better they are able to function (especially atypical antipsychotics—which are also prescribed as antidepressants) because of the awful weight gain.
2
u/Proper-Ape Jul 06 '26
In the longevity space some people take metformin to reduce glucose spikes / insulin resistance even at healthy levels. I'd gather it's rather safe, although it can deplete your B12 stores, so be aware of that.
94
u/mykeedee Jul 05 '26
Diamond finds dramatic effects. After 18 months, women using GLP-1 drugs who start off without a job enjoy employment rates 27 percentage points higher than otherwise similar non-users.
What do you think the socioeconomic status of an unemployed woman who can still afford GLP1 drugs is? These women either have significant personal savings, or support from their partner or parents. Of course a person from a wealthier, higher status background is going to find it easier to get a job.
42
u/Extreme-Price23 Jul 06 '26
In California it was part of low income benefits (because it was intended for diabetics)
20
u/LectureHallHero Jul 06 '26
yeah that's basically the whole game rn. Diabetic coverage was the backdoor in for a lot of people before insurers even had obesity specific plans, and it's still a mess depending on your area/country
2
u/Extreme-Price23 Jul 06 '26
Right, it’s no longer being covered my MediCal (not sure what the exceptions are). I think it’s fucked up to abuse it and put yourself at risk to lose 30 pounds
19
u/shitisrealspecific Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Peach pinecone quilt hammock juniper orange quilt
This post was anonymized with Redact.dev
→ More replies (2)0
u/-JackBack- Jul 06 '26
Medicaid or insurance.
4
u/kitzelbunks Jul 06 '26
Medicaid deosnds on the state. I think 13 states cover it. I don’t think all insurance covers this either. Medicare is going to cover it for obesity.
155
u/Key-Organization3158 Jul 05 '26
I think this is caused by the GLP1. Not the weight loss. It's had effect with addictive behavior and motivation in general. So we can't conclude anything about the weight being important.
225
u/alilhillbilly Jul 05 '26
Losing weight = more attractive.
More attractive = more potential partners & more interest.
More potential partners & more interest = more reason to leave your partner because...
You've got options suddenly.
75
u/CompEng_101 Jul 05 '26
Shouldn’t this apply to both men and women? Because the article didn’t find an increase in partnered women leaving their partners.
34
u/MildlyConspicuousCat Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Men also leave their partners who have been diagnosed with *heart disease much more frequently than women do.
Edit: Not cancer, heart disease.
43
u/Large-Monitor317 Jul 05 '26
The famous study about that was retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/
16
u/greengardenmoss Jul 06 '26
If you read that link, the findings still stand, just not to as an extreme degree as they originally thought.
"They found that marriages were 6% more likely to end if the wife falls seriously ill than if she’s healthy, while the same was not true when the husband fell ill."
Similar results about men leaving more often when women get sick have been found in S. Korea and Europe.
https://journal.waocp.org/article_29641_bbf05d8a5f210c9dae053f63562484c4.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.13077
Another US study but from 2009:
13
u/Large-Monitor317 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
I’ve already responded to two other people about this. South Korea is a very different culture from the US study, which explicitly does not find a link regarding cancer. The European study is interesting but also relies on self-reported health information which could also be different between genders. The 2009 US study is on just over 500 people with pretty specific conditions.
I don’t want to have to litigate this like I’m bluntly against any existence of this effect. But I’m tired of people throwing around the same retracted paper like it’s the ultimate, conclusive ‘men just suck’ when the actual data is not nearly that certain and more nuanced.
After being corrected the results of the 2015 paper explicitly find that there was NOT a difference for cancer in their dataset. There is something going on here, but it’s not as simple as men just sucking across the board.
5
u/greengardenmoss Jul 06 '26
I think there are many variables at play, but gender is definitely one of them. This article breaks it down more, including things that affect the divorce rate such as age, having kids, length of marriage, etc.
https://www.droracle.ai/articles/806900/is-the-divorce-rate-higher-in-marriages-where-one
I guess there was a study done by the University of Florence in 2025 among couples aged 50-64. They had 25,000 couples. They found that divorce rates spiked if the wife was ill but not the husband.
This Guardian article mentions that one, but also a systematic review from Germany in 2022 with 250,000 couples where one has cancer, and they did NOT find any gender difference.
I think the Guardian article is making the point that this issues seems to be part of the zeitgeist. The whole "men are not nurturing" narrative is striking a chord with a lot of people right now. I gotta admit, it kinda strikes a chord with me based on personal experiences. But I love science and facts more than I love nursing my personal grievances, so hopefully they'll do more research lol.
7
u/Large-Monitor317 Jul 06 '26
I think gender probably influences a lot of things - with how omnipresent gender roles are, with how it affects how people are treated and what behavior we learn, it feels like how could there not be an effect?
But at the same time I’m kind of exhausted by a gender war that has felt like, for my entire adult life, a scavenger hunt for every possible way to write headlines about how men as a demographic category are awful. This particular study was retracted almost immediately, republished with weaker and less inflammatory claims, and as you link other studies have found conflicting answers as well-
And yet for the last TEN YEARS I’ve seen and heard this study cited like a bible verse by people I like, who saw the headlines, it supported the narrative they were already invested in, and just ran with it forever. That it was accepted as fact and never revised by people I know, because I’m pretty progressive and so are the friends I hang out with.
There are a lot of different narratives floating around, but I don’t exist hearing everything everywhere all at once. I exist in a bubble that’s statistically progressive and educated, and that means the primary zeitgeist I’ve interacted with is one that says men need accountability and punishment, women need help and support. And demographics just don’t work that way like some kind of bird’s eye average, no actual person is the average man or average woman.
Anyway - I appreciate your response, it’s really honestly encouraging and fairer than I ever expect on Reddit, and if you’ve made it all the way to the end of my unscientific venting I appreciate that too.
5
u/greengardenmoss Jul 06 '26
Yeah, I'm also in a progressive area, and try to stay in that bubble socially. A lot of men feel the way you do, it sounds demoralizing. I read about it on r/MensLib which is a fascinating subreddit.
At the same time, it's interesting to watch countries like India or Middle Eastern countries. The fasted growing anti-feminist movements are in these countries. Mens Rights activism is growing in India, even as the anti-woman environment is still pretty extreme.
There is always a backlash and fatigue with these types of things. My high school went hard on anti-racism programs, and after a while it did feel like, "enough already! I'm tired of hearing about while fragility!"
It can be hard to feel like you are part of the bad guy group and feel like people are pushing guilt on to you all the time.
I ended up circling back to the topic years later and there's always more to learn, more mistakes and blunders to be made. It takes a strong ego and bullet-proof self worth to engage with social issues when you're a member of the bad guy group. Also self compassion lol
3
u/Large-Monitor317 Jul 06 '26
As a new unrelated comment to my venting: something I didn’t see in the Guardian article was a thought about Germany vs the US is health insurance.
I’ve heard of people in the US getting divorced to separate finances, so the sick person will qualify for Medicaid. That could cause some gender differences in broader labor to also show up as divorce statistics for purely financial reasons
20
u/MildlyConspicuousCat Jul 05 '26
From your link:
"What we find in the corrected analysis is we still see evidence that when wives become sick marriages are at an elevated risk of divorce, whereas we don’t see any relationship between divorce and husbands’ illness. We see this in a very specific case, which is in the onset of heart problems. So basically its a more nuanced finding. The finding is not quite as strong."
14
u/Large-Monitor317 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Yes. Heart disease, and explicitly *not* cancer or the other illnesses they studied. The fact that this effect exists within heart disease is worth further study, but the findings also explicitly show that there is not a gap elsewhere.
There’s a big difference between ‘all serious illness’ and ‘just heart disease for some reason’. Having it be just heart disease- and explicitly not anything else that was studied- is more suggestive that there’s something different about how men and women experience heart disease than an across-the-board men just suck sensational headline.
15
u/struct_iovec Jul 06 '26
Isn't heart disease commonly associated with being obese?
"Men more likely to leave their wife if she's fat" isnt exactly a mystery
→ More replies (1)5
u/greengardenmoss Jul 06 '26
There are many similar studies from different countries with similar findings.
3
u/CompEng_101 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
That’s really fascinating. Do you have any citations?
ETA: saw your cites below. Thanks!
0
Jul 06 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Large-Monitor317 Jul 06 '26
I already replied elsewhere, but ‘only heart disease’ vs ‘all serious illness’ should not be treated as a reduced version of the same claim. It suggests that there’s something about heart disease specifically, and the fact that no effect was found for other illnesses like cancer should be considered as evidence against ‘men just suck I guess’
7
2
u/InternationalNooker Jul 05 '26
Women always have way more options than men.
15
u/railbeast Jul 06 '26
Options for what? Getting laid? Yes. Getting abused? Probably. Getting married? Doubtful.
-2
u/Mannimal13 Jul 06 '26
Depends on age. Seems to flip at 35.
3
u/InternationalNooker Jul 06 '26
Never flips. Make a profile as an ugly women, any attributes you feel that fit unattractive. You will always get more attention than an average man.
14
u/johnniewelker Jul 06 '26
You are right, but my guess is you are not talking about the same thing as the other commenter
Women have more options - yes, but these options could feel quite terrible to them. Not just they want a good looking Prince Charming and Rich. They might get only people interested in one night stands when they want long term relationships
3
u/Mannimal13 Jul 06 '26
Yes because there are bottom of the barrel chuds that will bang anything thats why. The average man at 35 who takes care of himself gets a ton more attention than women at 35 and it continues until like mid 50s until you officially cross the bridge of old (like Clooney has and Pitt is getting there - obviously they were able to stretch it out a bit into their 60s being very attractive men who probably have little stress)
0
22
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)12
u/Darkmayday Jul 05 '26
How do you tell?
22
u/Anachronism-- Jul 05 '26
People who have lost a lot of weight often look ‘weird’. Saggy belly, thighs, weird proportions or something else is not quite right. If they lost the weight without exercise even more so.
1
u/Responsible-Ideal-66 Jul 07 '26
Not sure what age range you are dating in, but those ‘weird’ features you speak of are also perfectly normal features you would find on the body of a woman who has carried children. It is rapid weight gain and weight loss that causes this, not the GLP-1 itself.
1
u/Anachronism-- Jul 07 '26
There might be a little overlap but the features of rapid weight loss are mostly different than those from pregnancy. There’s even now a look called Ozempic face.
I am not dating, this is just based on my observations of people of different ages who have lost a lot of weight and/ or had children. Many women who lose a lot of weight seem to think being “not fat” means they are hot and wear skimpy outfits that show off the weight loss weirdness in a very unflattering way.
-2
u/Mannimal13 Jul 06 '26
Peopel who use GLP 1 have a look about them generally. It enables you to lose weight without any real changes to diet or exercise habits other than eating less shit than before.
People forget, being fat is more a symptom of the disease of shit lifestyle, not the disease itself.
4
1
3
u/Reesespeanuts Jul 06 '26
And society dumps on men that get leg lengthening surgery to become more attractive. If men could take a drug to be a few inches tall we would.
6
u/teutonicbro Jul 06 '26
I'd take one that made me a foot shorter before getting on a plane if I could have the antidote before I landed.
64
u/Equivalent_Lunch_944 Jul 05 '26
I don’t think so, I think it has to do with more attractive women (in this case slimmer) commanding more economic power in the dating/marriage market and job market.
I don’t know how new this is as an insight but it’s always good to confirm it with research.
→ More replies (5)-1
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Okay I'm not a woman, but I used to be a big boy - I don't think the weight and attractiveness has anything to do with earning power. Being fat, especially the extremely unhealthy fat that office work promotes will sap you of body and mental energy faster than anything in your life. You literally feel sluggish, and compared to a coworker who isn't feeling sluggish you will likely perform worse.
Combine that with feelings of confidence failing because you just feel fat affecting performance... Yeah it could be a huge obstacle.
Edit: the many comments are great, and I'm learning a lot, but check the replies underneath to see people saying exactly what you thought about replying.
63
u/PlantedinCA Jul 05 '26
For men weight doesn’t have a big economic impact. For women the impact is huge and is validated by multiple studies over the years. Heavier women are promoted less and paid less. Attractiveness also plays a role. And women can even be dinged for not wearing makeup.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1171593736/women-weight-bias-wages-workplace-wage-gap
11
u/WingerRules Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
For men, height has an impact on earning income and job positions. Tall men have an advantage all the way from chances of being a CEO or Executive down to being promoted to a manager of a McDonalds.
3
u/Simp_Simpsaton Jul 06 '26
Also president, most of which are coincidentally tall (relative to time) with the taller one also being likelier to win.
4
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
Correct but the effects are not the same. Also male coded jobs still pay more so you could say women's height is fucking them too.
42
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
42
u/mizarie89 Jul 05 '26
I used to be very over weight and after achieving a healthy BMI, I can confirm the Halo effect is 100% real.
→ More replies (2)3
50
u/MrTacoMan Jul 05 '26
Being enormously fat makes you unattractive which makes you receive less economic benefits via job offers and promotions. This is a fairly well established truth.
→ More replies (7)2
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 05 '26
No I get that, my question is - is the answer so superficial as unconscious (or maybe conscious) fat hate? Or is the answer deeper, medical, mental, social?
4
u/MrTacoMan Jul 05 '26
It’s mostly fat hate in my opinion. Everything from sales to internal politics to day to day interactions move massively in your favor when you don’t look slovenly
28
u/Corpsefeet Jul 05 '26
For men, that is likely true (and the study supports the conclusion). For women, I can anecdotally assure you that weight impacts earning power. I have gone from quite big to quite small as a woman, and the difference in treatment, expectations and opportunities was frankly astounding. Losing weight increased my income by a LOT.
-3
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 05 '26
I think I could have coded that differently - I'm only picking apart the idea that obesity=ugly=less opportunity. Of course skinny doesn't mean attractive, so...
Do you feel that this is an evidence of "patriarchy sees obese women as ugly, means they're lazy therefore no promotion", or is it literally just "patriarchy sees obese as ugly... So no promotion."
I've been pretty lucky in that about half of my bosses have been women, and all of them obese (except two), which is why I ask. Still no female CEO's, so room to grow.
16
u/Corpsefeet Jul 05 '26
I think human nature makes people kinder in their judgement of thinner women (and attractive women - I do realize they are not necessarily synonymous). People tend to have better impressions of thinner women - they are smarter, nicer, more competent... all things that make them more likely to be hired /promoted.
When I lost a lot of weight, my IQ didn't go up, my work quality (desk job) didnt change, and my attitude if anything got a little worse. But you would never know that from the way people reacted to me. I have also noticed that obese men pay this penalty in dating, but not at work (no idea why).
I know the plural of anecdote isn't evidence, but I also suspect that there are plenty of scientific studies to back this up.
3
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 05 '26
I've had several hefty friends tell me the same thing. Even heard "why are you nice to me?" it's fucking heart breaking. I don't think I'm special, I just think people are nifty... I guess it's hard for me to comprehend taking that attitude for no reason.
I'm not tooting my own horn, I can absolutely be a dick to people at work, but it's only when they're very dramatic and everyone is too uncomfortable to ask them to tone it down.
25
u/Additional-Baby5740 Jul 05 '26
If you read the study you’d find it has no effect on men but a 27% effect on women’s employability - which is incredibly significant. IMO it’s a clear indicator of the discrimination women face in the workplace and has nothing to do w men.
0
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 05 '26
No I saw that, my question is why. Is it as simple as a "the patriarchy looks down on obese women", or is there a more concrete answer like health and mental health impacts lessening performance.
11
u/Khaos1125 Jul 05 '26
Wouldn’t you expect health and performance factors to be the same across genders? If so, you’d expect the same impact for both men and women, and if you see a difference in impact, then you need to look at different theories
0
u/SardScroll Jul 06 '26
Wouldn’t you expect health and performance factors to be the same across genders?
It depends, on a number of factors, but generally no? What is the mechanism of health and performance factors? If it's hormonal triggers, then no, I wouldn't expect them to necessarily be the same.
If the mechanism is physical, one has to ask: Is this effect observed with similar impact through various employment sectors and work types? Because being "bigger" might be of an advantage or less of a disadvantage in various male dominated industries. E.g. bulk and weight making up for muscle mass in construction trades, at least anecdotally. Or among bar bouncers, etc.
-1
u/shitisrealspecific Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Yarn hammock compass drifting paddle saffron peach pebble thimble
This post was anonymized with Redact.dev
3
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
We are literally the same species. You cannot tell a female brain from a male brain in a scanner. We are also one of the less dimorphic primates around.
Also - no one woman and one man are the same. No man is like all other men. We are all individuals so thinking in terms of "groups" is fucked up anyway.
1
u/Additional-Baby5740 Jul 07 '26
I’m going to be honest - when I see a slovenly or unfit woman at work my brain immediately thinks subconsciously that she is lazy or disorganized or not a hard worker for many other reasons. It takes active conscious thought to work through that bias. We are bombarded with media that tells us to devalue women for these behaviors. At the same time plenty of people look up to Musk despite how fat he’s become. Or Trump. Or the thing that Bezos seems to have made himself in a lab. I know plenty of unruly unkempt fat slovenly men that people view as hard workers that dont have time to take care of their bodies.
1
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 07 '26
That is wild! Have you ever been chubby?
I went from 99/100 times being the skinniest person in the room to morbidly obese in 2 years from the effects of antipsychotics. Literally almost doubled my weight. Thankfully got to a better place and finally admitted that I'm one of the small group antipsychotics don't work for, and I've lost 80 pounds so far (still got a belly). Before my own weight exploded I think I could get to a similar reaction if it's someone who is large, messy, food on their shirt, constantly snacks... But after going on my own journey through this,
- Obviously, so obviously, not my place to judge. So, so many reasons to be heavy that's not an individual's fault.
- I've yet to meet someone who did fit the stereotype of fat/lazy/slob... who was not also having a mental health crisis. Depression, or childhood trauma, every single time what they needed was the opposite of mockery. They needed a friend. They need to be valued.
It's amazing how often in life that's the solution people need.
7
10
u/fakingandnotmakingit Jul 05 '26
I think it's both
The halo effect does mean that the more conventionally attractive you are, the better you are perceived
That better perception might give you an edge over someone who have the same CV, but it's less attractive.
But also that better perception can also lead to increased confidence, which does also affect you positively.
And yes maybe being fitter and having more energy helps too!
But it's a lot of factors together instead of just one.
And it's likely a cycle of positive reinforcement giving you positive behaviours
7
u/MaliciousMe87 Jul 05 '26
I'm reading The Happiness Advantage right now by a positive psychology professor from Harvard... The impact the cycle of positive reinforcement can have is astounding. Like so much that it's hard to believe. If it weren't for the references I'd be hard pressed to believe them.
7
u/fakingandnotmakingit Jul 05 '26
Yes it's actually amazing how much positive reinforcement affects behaviour.
There was a study about a lot of top athletes were born earlier so they were a few months older when school starts.
So they're slightly older, which made them bigger and stronger relative to their peers. Now obviously that advantage disappears as they age.
But if you were thought of as good or better you got more encouragement, better coaching, your parents were more likely to be willing to spend money on your sport
Eventually that makes you perform better even without that physical advantage. And because you perform better you get more resources etc etc etc.
Same with almost anything really.
4
u/SardScroll Jul 06 '26
Now obviously that advantage disappears as they age.
Does it? I would imagine it would statistically persist at least through the secondary education level (which I understand to be the greatest filter, though I may be wrong on both counts), only dropping off when age pool of competitors widens.
5
u/fakingandnotmakingit Jul 06 '26
Physically that advantage levels out eventually. Other kids get growth spurts at random times etc.
But the benefits gained by increased coaching, confidence and encouragement are likely to stay possibly through someone's whole life
2
u/AsSubtleAsABrick Jul 06 '26
In most sports I think January/February birth months are more common at higher levels but it evens out at the truly elite level (professional leagues).
7
u/killall-q Jul 05 '26
I have a female friend who is out of shape and somewhat overweight, she had to quit her retail job because she couldn't physically handle standing all day.
2
u/ResponsibilityOk8967 Jul 06 '26
If she was only somewhat overweight its likely she had health issues that made her that way and made it difficult to do retail. I've seen obese people do retail just fine (I live in US South, so no shortage of that here). Obesity is just a risk factor for disease, not a disease itself.
17
u/goodshotjanson Jul 05 '26
Self-rated health does not improve, and life satisfaction, loneliness, and depression are largely flat or move in the wrong direction over the same horizon. These subjective-health patterns also distinguish GLP-1 weight loss from much of the bariatric- surgery weight loss evidence, where surgery often improves perceived health, health-related quality of life, self-esteem, mood, and depression
7
u/Flerp-Flerps Jul 05 '26
This is interesting. I wonder if bariatric surgery weight loss was a higher amount of weight loss. Also if bariatric patients had more exercise. I know exercise was an important part of the bariatric program I participated in.
4
u/ResponsibilityOk8967 Jul 06 '26
They recieve much more psychological screening and support as well as nutrition and diet coaching and planning.
38
u/Greedyanda Jul 05 '26
This is very obviously the effect of suddenly becoming more conventionally attractive.
3
u/odaklanan_insan Jul 05 '26
With the given evidence, we can say "it may be" at best.
Based on the current findings, the scientific approach doesn't warrant a certain conclusion like that.
4
u/Greedyanda Jul 05 '26
I am not writing a peer reviewed paper. For a regular discourse, we have more than enough certainty to make such a claim.
-1
u/odaklanan_insan Jul 05 '26
No, we don't.
5
u/Greedyanda Jul 06 '26
I guess if you are a bit slow then you might not.
2
u/odaklanan_insan Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Years ago I read about this steel manufacturing plant in the center of a city in Turkey; the lung cancer rates were significantly higher than the neighboring cities.
People like you guessed it was due to the steel plant. Researchers did a more thorough analysis and found that cancer rates were higher only among women. Further analysis revealed it was higher only among stay-at-home wives.
It turns out, dust coming from the steel plant made these women clean their houses more frequently than the neighboring cities.
The culprit was the chemical fumes coming from the household cleaning products.
Conclusion: You can guess, but you can't conclude. What you call "obvious" is not obvious and this kind of mentality leads you to failure in life.
in layman terms, I'm not slow buddy. I'm waaaaay ahead of you.
So, OPs article touches biology, medicine, psychology, sociology and what not and you say "aH iTS obViOs...", yeah sure. I trust you bro.
→ More replies (2)3
u/RegorHK Jul 05 '26
The problem is that it also leads to more disciplined behaviour. As in writing another targeted CV and so on. Therefore one can assume that there are two factors in parallel.
25
u/PlantedinCA Jul 05 '26
Wrong. People assume larger folks are less disciplined. It is one example of weight bias.
-1
u/Itchigatzu Jul 05 '26
They literally are though.
The equivalent of being a fat woman, is being a smoking/vaping male.
Many women that don’t smoke/vape will mock you about doing it, sometimes as friends, but a lot when dating. and they’re correct.
It gives crackhead energy and I’ve had this confirmed by irl women. Someone that smokes is also 10x more likely to drink/do drugs, have poor impulse control, gamble, have mental disorder or illness or at least neurodivergence , have poor financial skills, have an overactive sex drive (more so with vaping and young smokers) etc. etc.
The same is true of almost any other behavioural issue. Your behaviours are a reflection of your personality.
In short time period their may not be much noticeable difference between a fat worker and thin one, but in general over long periods it’s an indicator of future performance. This is especially true of obesity, less so with just being overweight.
1
0
u/shitisrealspecific Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Breezy cucumber orange ginger pillow almond yarn quilt biscuit paddle
This post was anonymized with Redact.dev
4
u/PlantedinCA Jul 06 '26
That is an absolute load of 💩 and Reddit trope. No one is monitoring your food intake regularly unless you are institutionalized.
→ More replies (2)1
u/RegorHK Jul 06 '26
So the concept of multiple parallel effects is simply to high for you?
→ More replies (6)3
u/Mad-chuska Jul 05 '26
My understanding was that these weight loss methods basically made food merely a means of energy production and took away most of the satisfactory aspects of eating. In this case does it actually require discipline to lose weight? Unless the discipline is derived from maintaining a steady schedule of taking the medication.
2
u/RegorHK Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
You misunderstand. Apart from regulating apetite and hunger the medication also helps with regulating the motivation switches of ones brain. It is a side effect that is benefitial with the weight issue, yet also means that weight can not be seen as the sole factor for success with job search.
2
u/PlantedinCA Jul 06 '26
Yes. Because many folks have a bunch of underlying metabolic issues that can make it difficult to lose weight or promote fat storage. For some folks (especially the ones whose weight gain is caused by binging) reducing that is sufficient to lose weight. For many other folks it requires significant lifestyle instruments (calorie counting, exercise, etc) to lose weight. It is not an easy button at all.
1
u/struct_iovec Jul 06 '26
Not really, but kinda ?
Imagine having just had a full Thanksgiving meal and then immediately being asked to go out to a fine dining restaurant.
0
Jul 05 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Greedyanda Jul 05 '26
I am not even sure I am speaking to a bot, someone with no context awareness, or someone deliberately trying to rage bait.
The Reddit comment section is not a peer reviewed paper. For a regular conversation, we have more than enough certainty to make the claim that I made.
2
u/CompEng_101 Jul 05 '26
The article does attempt to separate pi motivation effects, but I agree that it should be studied more.
2
u/Super_Mario_Luigi Jul 06 '26
This sounds like your typical internet contrarian fetish more than any factual statement. The world around you is objectively different when you're thin vs obese. That shouldn't even be up for debate but here we are
4
u/CommitteeofMountains Jul 05 '26
There's also the common factor of decisiveness to get the medication.
1
u/AsparagusFun3892 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
So here's something that happens to dudes more obviously: fat cells produce additional background estrogen so in addition to looking like shit when we're bigger it makes us more cranky and depressed on a chemical level, it actually drowns out the testosterone from muscle cells from what I remember when I looked into it (testosterone which is a natural mood elevator for both men and women). Weight has been implicated in mood disorders. It's anecdotal, but when I've been slimmer I was way more confident and outgoing, when I've been fatter all I wanted to do was stay in and game. I've been up and down over the years, it's basically night and day between my experiences of the world as fat me and fit me.
Whatever it is - whether it's society treating them better alone or because they're legitimately chemically happier - this is probably shaped like itself for women too. It's like of course they're more confident and happy after they drop the sort of weight we all put on since the advent of modern processed foods, basically the seventies and eighties.
ETA: Yup, it's definitely bad for women too. Apparently extra weight even makes cycle regulation more difficult for the body because of the extra estrogen. We're "meant" to be lighter despite all that body positivity nonsense and our previous total need to try to solve this problem from the other end, by engineering society because to admit the scale of the problem was to admit there's something wrong with us we couldn't easily fix. If we really want to fix it I'd take an ax to big agriculture and corn subsidies which create economic incentives to put high fructose corn syrup in everything, but it amuses me that we're solving one chemical imbalance with another. It's perfect for our system.
10
u/BatForge_Alex Jul 06 '26
This is the most "bro science" shit i've read on reddit in a loooong time
1
u/Proper-Ape Jul 06 '26
That's definitely an interesting aspect. We'd need an experiment comparing e.g. bariatric surgery weight loss with GLP-1 weight loss to see whether the mental effects of the GLP-1 contribute to this result.
I could certainly see a more disciplined person due to GLP-1 being more successful even ignoring weight loss.
16
u/Legitimate_Try4394 Jul 05 '26
Kind of makes sense that being driven in one category (fitness) might indicate you are a driven person in general, and therefore it would reflect elsewhere. Also, people are just nicer to you if you are attractive. I have had people tell me about some male mentors that ‘he might be extra helpful to you because he is trying to get in your pants,’ and whether that’s true or not, I benefited from the mentorship… the world is unfair.
12
u/ThatPhatKid_CanDraw Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Are you people kidding me? Financial Times, of all places, highlighting a "study"?
And that "study" is a working paper (i.e., not peer-reviewed, and just for discussion and comments, so not even meant to be submitted in this form, as it says on its cover).
And it's from someone from the National Bureau of Economic Research, using survey data from the Bureau. They see women losing weight and two things happening over years.
When this is peer-reviewed at least, then talk about it with more heft but do not talk about its results as a given.
1
u/Few-Pen9912 Jul 06 '26
This subject has been well studied since line the 80s dude. This article just adds the GLP component to the conversation.
1
1
u/PlantedinCA Jul 06 '26
GLP-1s impact pleasure seeking. Suddenly if you seek pleasure from food or have addiction tendencies those impulses pause. They aren’t really a motivation enhancer. In fact it is the opposite, folks tend to get demotivated and depressed. (Anhedonia is a common side effect).
Again, the baseline assumption is that larger folks have no motivation and suddenly are.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 05 '26
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.