Obesity is a chronic, relapsing neuro-metabolic disease shaped by biology, environment, policy, and psychology. This article reviews U.S. epidemiology and consequences, reframing causation through psychosocial, political, and pathophysiological lenses—including gut-to-brain hormonal circuits that drive craving and overeating.Â
Â
We will review why many traditional strategies underperform and discuss the development, outcomes, and limitations of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
Â
Current national surveillance shows that obesity remains common, and severe obesity is still rising. This trend to obesity began in the mid-1970s in spite of the constant mantra to move more and eat less. Â
Â
In the most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)-based analysis (Aug 2021–Aug 2023), 40.3% of U.S. adults met criteria for obesity and 9.4% for severe obesity; overall obesity did not change significantly versus 2013–2014, but severe obesity increased (7.7% → 9.7%). Â
Â
Kids have also been affected: 19.7% of U.S. youths aged 2–19 have obesity (~14.7 million), with prevalence climbing across childhood into adolescence.Â
Â
Obesity appears more prevalent in the Midwest and South, and rural communities consistently outpace urban areas. Disparities by race/ethnicity are marked: across 2021–2023, according to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) a state-based health survey run by the CDC, many more states report obesity ≥35% among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults compared with non-Hispanic White and Asian adults, and prevalence falls as education rises. Â
Â
Children show similar gradients, with higher obesity among lower-income families. These statistics reflect policy-shaped conditions—food environments, built environments, stress/sleep burdens, and uneven access to care—rather than a lack of willpower.
So what caused this obesity pandemic?
There isn’t a single culprit—the rise in obesity since the 1970s is the result of many small pushes in the same direction that, together, overwhelmed our biology.Â
Â
Ultra-processed foods (refined carbs + added sugars + seed oils + salt) became ubiquitous and inexpensive. They are engineered for hyper-palatability and rapid eating, which drives higher calorie intake before satiety signals catch up.Â
Â
Portion sizes and serving norms also grew (restaurant meals, snacks, fountain drinks) along with a constant availability/marketing, including to children, increased “cue-triggered” eating (seeing ads/packaging → craving → purchase).
Â
Commodity subsidies, consolidation of food retail/fast food, and an increase in away-from-home eating lowered the price per calorie and raised convenience. Time scarcity (dual-earner households, longer commutes) favors convenience food.
Â
Our biology didn’t change, but it’s wired to defend weight upward. Weight is regulated by a gut–brain–adipose network (leptin, insulin, GLP-1, PYY, ghrelin). In an environment of calorie-dense food, these systems defend gaining weight via increased hunger and reduced energy expenditure (“adaptive thermogenesis”).
Â
Highly palatable foods activate reward pathways (dopamine in the mesolimbic system), reinforcing frequent snacking and cravings—this looks and feels like “food addiction,” even though it isn’t a moral failing. Even a modest average daily surplus leads to large weight changes over the years – to put it simply, just having a cookie or a can of soda per day above maintenance calories can result in a 20 pound weight gain across one year.
Â
Activity patterns shifted, but intake changes mattered more. Work became more sedentary; labor-saving tech reduced non-exercise activity; car-centric design limited routine walking. Physical activity still protects health, but energy expenditure fell less than intake rose, so it couldn’t counterbalance the calorie environment.
Â
Short sleep, circadian disruption (shift work), and chronic stress raise hunger hormones (ghrelin), blunt satiety (leptin), and push toward calorie-dense comfort foods.
Since the late 1970s to 1980s, there has been a wider use of medications that tend to promote weight gain (some antidepressants/antipsychotics, insulin/sulfonylureas, valproate, β-blockers).
Â
Smoking rates declined (good for health, but average weight increases after quitting).
Early-life factors (maternal diabetes/obesity, formula feeding, early antibiotics, possible endocrine-disrupting chemicals) may nudge lifelong weight regulation upward—evidence varies in strength but points in the same direction.
What hasn’t worked well and why?
Willpower-only or “eat less, move more” messaging without biological support. For the vast majority of people, this advice is just not effective and leads to a sense of personal failure when the weight does not come off or is regained. Fad diets and extreme restriction may lead to short-term loss, but then metabolic adaptation, and regain of the weight almost always results.
Â
Exercise-only approaches for weight loss are excellent for health, but generally don’t provide for meaningful weight loss unless paired with diet and medication.
Â
Prior pharmacotherapy, like Fen-Phen, or the fat blocker Orlistat, for example, has had safety issues or difficult-to-tolerate side effects.
Â
One-size-fits-all programs that ignore phenotype, mental health, and environment are doomed to failure.
Incretin-Based Therapies
Incretin is a gut-derived hormone released after eating that amplifies glucose-dependent insulin secretion from the pancreas. The two main human incretins are GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide), secreted by the duodenum/jejunum, and GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1), secreted by the ileum/colon.
Â
GIP, in addition to stimulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion, also appears to re-tune adipose insulin sensitivity and modulate appetite circuits in the brain.
Â
GLP-1 also stimulates glucose-dependent insulin secretion but, in addition, suppresses glucagon when glucose is high, slows gastric emptying, and dampens hunger and food-cue reward via central pathways.
The first incretins developed were for the treatment of diabetes. Eventually, incretins were approved for weight management. These early incretins were GLP-1 agonists. Semiglutide (Ozempic) is a well-known example of this. For many people, this drug is very effective for weight loss.Â
Â
Some people, however, did not respond as well. Newer drugs are now on the market that target both the GLP-1 and GIP receptors (tirzepatide under the brand names Mounjaro/Zepbound).
Â
GLP-1 and GIP are complementary incretin targets. GLP-1 chiefly curbs appetite, slows the gut, and normalizes meal-time hormones; GIP adds central satiety and adipose metabolic benefits. Co-activating both—as with tirzepatide—has translated into larger, more durable weight loss than GLP-1-only drugs in head-to-head and obesity trials.
Â
In comparison studies, GLP-1 targeting alone results in about 15% body weight loss in 72 weeks compared to dual therapy (trizepatide) loss of 20% body weight in non diabetic patients.Â
Â
When studied in diabetics, tirzepatide still outperformed semaglutide, but the amount lost was 8-13% vs 7% with semaglutide over 40 weeks. In addition to weight loss, these drugs have shown cardiovascular protection (fewer major cardiovascular events—even without diabetes.) Improvement in heart failure, obstructive sleep apnea, and preservation of kidney function. Even blood pressure and lipids are modestly improved.
Â
Unfortunately, there are some issues affecting compliance with incretin treatment.Â
GI side effects, especially nausea, vomiting, and constipation, are common but often can be mitigated by starting with a lower dose and gradually titrating. Smaller low-fat meals may also mitigate this. Some patients may need to use antiemetic medication and laxatives initially.
These symptoms generally improve with time.
Â
At this time, most incretins are given by self-administered subcutaneous injection weekly. Fear of injections or overcomplicated titration schedules may not be for everyone. Oral semigutide is available for the treatment of diabetes, but is not specifically approved for obesity treatment. The dose of that medication (Rybelsus) is not as effective as the injectable version for weight loss. A larger dose oral formulation for obesity is under FDA review and holds promise.
Â
In the past, there had been concern about a possible link to pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, but several very large studies have shown no causal link between incretin therapy and these diseases. Â
Â
There has also been a concern about medullary thyroid cancer because it was noted in rodent studies; however, human studies are mixed with either a very modest risk or no risk.
Â
In context, consider that medullary thyroid cancer represents only about 1-2% of thyroid cancers with an incidence of about 0.15-.018/100,000 per year in the US. Even a small relative increase would be a very small absolute increase. However, out of caution, incretins should not be used in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2.
Â
Unfortunately, like previous medications, if the therapy is stopped, the weight tends to return, especially if no other weight control strategies and meds are employed. The condition is controlled, not cured. This should not be a deterrent to its use.Â
Â
This is no different than other chronic conditions, such as diabetes or hypertension, which require ongoing treatment. It is important to combine incretin therapy with a tailored diet, exercise, and psychological support for optimal results.Â
Â
Obesity care is entering a neuro-hormonal era: incretins powerfully lower set-point pressure and cravings, but best results come when biology, behavior, and environment are addressed together. It has changed the understanding of this condition.Â
Â
We no longer overcredit willpower; if one person needs 100% effort and another only needs 20% to lose or maintain weight, the difference is biology, not virtue. Sustainable success pairs effective meds with nutrition, activity, sleep, mental health support, and policy changes that make healthier choices default.
References:
Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials.
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, Volume 7, Issue 10, 2019, Pages 776-785,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213858719302499 accessed Aug 15, 2025.
Â
Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Sattar, Naveed et al.
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, Volume 9, Issue 10, 653 – 662.
Â
CDC https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/p0912-adult-obesity.htmlÂ
Accessed Aug 14, 2025.
Â
Dankner R, Murad H, Agay N, Olmer L, Freedman LS. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2813598?utm_source=chatgpt.com Accessed Aug 15, 2025.
Â
David R. Meldrum, Marge A. Morris, Joseph C. Gambone,
Obesity pandemic: causes, consequences, and solutions—but do we have the will?,
Fertility and Sterility, Volume 107, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 833-839, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028217302236 Accessed August 14, 2025.
Â
FDA news release: FDA Approves First Medication for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-medication-obstructive-sleep-apnea Accessed Aug 15, 2025.
Â
Filip K Knop, Vanita R Aroda, Ruben D do Vale, Thomas Holst-Hansen, Peter N Laursen, Julio Rosenstock, Domenica M Rubino, W Timothy Garvey,
Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, The Lancet, Volume 402, Issue 10403, 2023, Pages 705-719, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673623011856 Accessed August 14, 2025.
Â
Jastreboff Ania M. et al. Tirzepatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Obesity N Engl J Med 2022;387:205-216 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2206038 Accessed July 14, 2025.
Â
Julien Bezin, Amandine Gouverneur, Marine PĂ©nichon, ClĂ©ment Mathieu, Renaud Garrel, Dominique Hillaire-Buys, Antoine Pariente, Jean-Luc Faillie; GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and the Risk of Thyroid Cancer. Diabetes Care 1 February 2023; 46 (2): 384–390.Â
https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-1148Â Accessed Aug 15, 2025.
Â
Kosiborod Mikhail N. et al. Semaglutide in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity N Engl J Med 2023;389:1069-1084 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2306963 Accessed Aug 15, 2025.
Â
Lincoff, Michael A et al Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes N Engl J Med 2023; 389:2221-2232 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2307563Â
Accessed August 15, 2025.
Â
Søren L Kristensen, Rasmus Rørth, Pardeep S Jhund, Kieran F Docherty, Naveed Sattar, David Preiss, Lars Køber, Mark C Petrie, John J V McMurray, Temple NJ. The Origins of the Obesity Epidemic in the USA-Lessons for Today. Nutrients. 2022 Oct 12;14(20):4253. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9611578/ Accessed August 14, 2025.
Â
Wilding John P.H. et al Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity NEngl J Med 2021;384:989-1002 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183 Accessed Aug 14, 2025.