Recently I wrote about research around GLP-1s and nutritional deficiencies. In summary, we looked at a study that showed that most of the clinical trials aren’t studying this at all, and that when studies do consider this there are concerning findings, and, finally, the implications of all this.

I was recently contacted by a Chicago-area private practice dietitian (MS, RDN, LDN) who had, in fact, written a letter to the editor of the journal that published one of the articles I looked at in Part 2, Malnutrition is Common in Patients Utilizing Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Agonists Prior to Total Joint Arthroplasty, published in the journal Arthroplasty Today. The letter made important points about the study itself (including the lack of a Registered Dietitian among the authors) as well as issues with the measures chosen and more.

This is where I would link to the published letter, except that it’s not published. It was rejected, not on the merits of its arguments, but with a single sentence:

“We appreciate your letter to the editor but I am not sure that we typically have registered dietician [sic] comment or collaborate on our research."

Remember when I wrote about the FDA Averse Events Reporting System and how the drug companies are required to report adverse events? Novo Nordisk just got a warning from the FDA for…not doing that.

I’m very excited to announce the culmination of a project I’ve been working on for Project HEAL. They are an incredible organization that works to break down systemic, healthcare, and financial barriers to eating disorder healing. They already had a series of templates for insurance appeals and they reached out to me to create a blog post and templates to appeal weight-based denials and failure to accommodate.

In Part 1 we looked at the problematic justification used by the Colorado Legislature to pass legislation following massive lobbying from the weight loss industry and their astroturf “patient advocacy” groups.

Today I am going to talk about the actual contents of the law and am grateful for input from an attorney with many years’ experience in health care law and regulation who was willing to provide thoughts but did want to note that they are not admitted to practice in Colorado.

A bill in support of weight loss interventions, particularly GLP-1 diet drugs, has passed the Colorado state legislature and been signed into law. Very similar bills are being pushed by the weight loss industry (and their astroturf “patient-advocacy” groups, particularly the “Ob*sity Action Coalition”) in individual states and federally with the goal of increasing insurance coverage (and through that the market, and through that the profits) for weight loss drugs and other weight loss interventions.

I’m going to go through the bill bit by bit as it relates to weight science, weight stigma, healthcare, and areas that suggest weight loss industry influence.

I got the following question from reader LouAnna who asked

“I just saw that they are developing even more new weight loss drugs of the GLP1 type that (supposedly, of course) create even more lost weight. What ever happened to the claim that we just need to lose 5-10% ? Don’t these new weight loss drugs already claim that they exceed that? Will it never stop?”

This is a great question and I’m happy to offer my thoughts.

In part 1 we discussed a study that showed that malnutrition is very rarely studied in randomized controlled trials for GLP-1s. In part 2 we looked at the findings of research that studied nutritional deficiencies in GLP-1 users. Today we’ll talk about the implications of these findings, including what we know, what we don’t, and what we should.

In Part 1 we talked about a study that showed that most randomized controlled trials for GLP-1s failed to assess nutrition/possible nutrition deficits. Today I’m going to summarize some research that did look at these possible issues in people using GLP-1s. In Part 3 I’ll talk about the implications of all of this.

I subscribe to a borderline ridiculous number of medical publications from which I receive an absolutely ridiculous number of emails. One headline caught my eye “GLP-1s Bringing Back Scurvy?”

I received the following reader question:

My name is Mary and I’m a family doc (you can use my first name if you print this.) I wouldn’t say that I’m fully onboard with being weight inclusive but I’ve been reading your work and I can’t deny that what you are writing makes sense and is grounded in research (some of which I had never heard of in any of my training.) I have been thinking about what you wrote when you said how important it is that we ask our patients questions instead of making assumptions. I will admit to making assumptions about diet and exercise with patients who are what you would call higher weight. Thank you for helping me see that, but I’m having difficulty with what to do instead and how to ask the questions and I thought others might be as well. Is this something you would be interested in writing about?

Thanks for the introspection, the open-mindedness, and the great question, I’m happy to write about this.