logo
What to know about GLP-1 supplements for weight loss

What to know about GLP-1 supplements for weight loss

Yahoo22-04-2025

As the Food and Drug Administration cracks down on compounded versions of popular weight loss drugs Wegovy (semaglutide) and Zepbound (tirzepatide), Americans who rely on these cheaper medications may be drawn to a dicey sector of the dietary supplement market.
From colorful patches and fruit punch-flavored gummies to prebiotic powders and under-the-tongue tinctures, dietary supplements that claim to 'complement' or 'supercharge' the body's levels of the gut hormone GLP-1 are a dime a dozen. While compounded drugs require at least a virtual consultation with a clinician to get a prescription, supplements are available over the counter.
At best, such products are misleading, said Jamie Alan, an associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University's College of Human Medicine. So-called GLP-1 supplements, named to echo the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist drugs that includes Wegovy and Zepbound, are likely to be ineffective for weight loss.
'If you can buy it without a prescription, it's not an actual GLP-1 drug,' Alan said. 'It is something else that's marketed to support your endogenous GLP-1 production. These things are just older weight loss [supplements] that are rebranded, and there's really no scientific evidence for these.'
Ashwagandha and green tea extract are among the natural ingredients that have been recycled in diet products for decades, Alan said. Ashwagandha is often advertised as a stress reliever, and though the stress hormone cortisol is tied to weight gain, there's little proof the evergreen shrub directly helps shed pounds. Green tea and green tea extract may have a 'possible modest effect on body weight,' according to mixed research cited by the Office of Dietary Supplements, some of which links the extract to liver damage.
'We're coming back to these products that have been ineffective in the past,' Alan said. Ingredients popping up on GLP-1 supplement labels include everything from berberine to chromium to saffron extract, which have a minimal body of research supporting their effects on weight loss.
What's missing from the ingredient lists is also of note.
The brand Kind Patches indicates its GLP-1 adhesive 'does not contain synthetic GLP-1 and is not a GLP-1 agonist drug.' Lemme, Kourtney Kardashian Barker's wellness brand, features an identical disclaimer for its GLP-1 Daily Support Capsules. Trim Biome GLP-1, manufactured by Inno Supps, boasts 'clinically studied ingredients' but not the hormone in the product's name.
Lemme declined to comment; Inno Supps and Kind Patches didn't respond to a request for comment.
Jeff Ventura, the vice president of communications for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group for the supplement industry, said in a statement that there are 'no direct comparators' for GLP-1 drugs in the dietary supplement industry.
'While some supplement ingredients have shown promise in limited studies related to metabolic health and weight management, they do not have the same effects as GLP-1 drugs,' Ventura said.
'It is very tricky, because they'll put that big 'GLP-1' on there and it makes you think, 'Well, maybe this is the drug,' if you're not thinking about how to read these labels or if you don't know how to read these labels,' Alan said.
The FDA doesn't regulate dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness before they hit the market, whether they're a daily multivitamin or a post-workout protein powder. For that reason, the agency advises consulting a health care provider before adding any supplement to your regimen.
'There could be harm in some of these,' Alan said. 'There are going to be some people who might have a significant drug interaction, who might have a significant medical condition. In most people there's probably minimal risk of harm, but that's not true for everyone.'
GLP-1 drugs aren't new, having been used to treat Type 2 diabetes since 2005. Demand soared after the FDA approved Wegovy and Zepbound for weight loss in 2021 and 2023, respectively. The ensuing shortages made it legal for compounding pharmacies to step in.
Compounding pharmacies typically mix, alter or combine drug ingredients to meet a patient's specific needs. For example, a pharmacy may make a liquid version of a drug that only comes in pill form for a patient who has trouble swallowing. During drug shortages, they're also authorized to craft medications that are 'essentially copies' of commercially available drugs.
Compounded versions of Wegovy and Zepbound skyrocketed in popularity — in part because they were generally sold for far less than their brand-name counterparts. Wegovy, for instance, has a list price of $1,349.02 for a four-week supply, though some insurance plans cover it. Meanwhile, WeightWatchers offers compounded semaglutide starting at $129 a month.
That's coming to an end: The FDA declared the tirzepatide shortage over in December and did the same for the semaglutide shortage in February. Compounders must now pull their products. The grace period for tirzepatide manufacturers is over, and semaglutide producers have until Tuesday or May 22, depending on whether they're a state-licensed pharmacy or an outsourcing facility.
That leaves a huge opening for GLP-1 supplement sellers to flood the $49.3 billion global market — and convince consumers a $15 pack of unproven patches will yield the same results as brand-name drugs that have undergone comprehensive clinical trials, said Dr. W. Scott Butsch, director of obesity medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Bariatric and Metabolic Institute.
Butsch, who has previously consulted for Novo Nordisk (maker of Wegovy) and Eli Lilly (maker of Zepbound), said he was already concerned about the ubiquity of compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide in recent years.
'The FDA states very clearly: These compounded versions are not the same,' he said. 'They don't have the same ingredients. They have not been tested.'
Worse still, Butsch said, compounders and now supplement companies are using lower pricing to target an already vulnerable clientele. Walmart, for example, sells a variety of GLP-1 supplements under $50.
Blair Cromwell, the director of global communications for Walmart's U.S. Marketplace, said in a statement that dietary supplements are sold by third-party sellers on its Marketplace.
'Our policy allows the sale of dietary supplements if they comply with applicable regulations as well as federal, state and local laws, and FTC guidelines,' Cromwell said, adding that the company would be likely to review products marketed as GLP-1 supplements and 'remove them if found to make inappropriate or inaccurate claims.'
'[The wellness market] has continued to prey on the desperate, and these are people who have poor access,' Butsch said. 'Patients with obesity have always had poor access to obesity medications.'
He added, 'You have some optimism among people who think that they can save some money and still get the benefit. But it's a bigger carrot that they're carrying in front of the horse now.'
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and the director of Tufts University's Food Is Medicine Institute, said, 'There's no simple dietary fix that's going to do what these drugs do in a short amount of time.'
Still, the metabolic mechanism the supplements claim to achieve — boosting natural GLP-1 production — isn't without merit.
'The food I'm eating is biologic information that's activating hormones in my body, including GLP-1,' Mozaffarian said, noting that healthy fats and high-fiber foods have been shown to trigger GLP-1 production. But its natural release into the bloodstream is fleeting; GLP-1 drugs work by mimicking the hormone and keeping it around longer, which can aid in appetite suppression.
'It's too early for [GLP-1 supplements] to have science behind them,' Mozaffarian said. 'But I do think in the future we will be able to give people more clear recommendations on what's a natural, lifestyle way to boost your GLP-1 function.'
For now, he said, 'I wouldn't spend money on these supplements, I would spend money on healthy food.'
Alan, of Michigan State University, was blunt.
'It's snake oil at this point,' she said. 'You're really wasting your money.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

2 Weight Loss Drug Stocks That Are Screaming Buys in June
2 Weight Loss Drug Stocks That Are Screaming Buys in June

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

2 Weight Loss Drug Stocks That Are Screaming Buys in June

Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have most of the GLP-1 drug market to themselves. Based on current pipelines, this state of affairs could continue. Both stocks are attractively priced at the moment. 10 stocks we like better than Novo Nordisk › Is there a hotter trend in healthcare than weight loss drugs? Probably not. Research from Morgan Stanley suggests that sales of weight loss drugs will soar from an estimated $15 billion last year to as much as $150 billion by 2035. That would be a tenfold increase in just over a decade. Most current medications for weight loss are GLP-1 agonists, which suppress patients' appetites by slowing digestion and making them feel full. Two companies, Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) and Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY), currently dominate this area, together accounting for an estimated 97% of the market share. Can they can stay atop this fast-growing industry? Here's what I found -- and why they could both be screaming buys right now in June 2025. Whenever an opportunity exhibits such rapid growth, it will inevitably attract competition. Indeed, numerous companies are currently developing weight loss drugs. However, it's quite a leap to assume that Novo Nordisk, with 62% of the GLP-1 market, and Eli Lilly with another 35%, will easily cede their market share to new products. First and foremost, drug development is a challenging process that undergoes rigorous regulatory testing. Many of the drugs in development today will ultimately fail to reach the market. In April, industry heavyweight Pfizer abandoned development of its oral weight loss drug danuglipron, after it may have caused a liver injury in a patient during a clinical trial. Weight loss drugs that do make it to market must then actually compete with what patients already use. That boils down to more than price: Efficacy, side effects, and prescribers' comfort levels with products all make a difference in how these treatments ultimately sell. The weight loss opportunity is currently in its early innings. The leading drugs -- Novo Nordisk's Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly's Mounjaro and Zepbound -- are injected, require refrigeration, and remain expensive for patients. Upcoming drugs will include more convenient oral pills; some could be cheaper to produce, and thus could be sold at lower prices. Naturally, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have remained active in order to stay atop the market. Novo Nordisk could soon have an oral GLP-1 agonist for sale; it has filed an application for approval of an oral version of Wegovy. The company hopes to receive a nod by the end of this year. Additionally, its candidate CagriSema, a potential successor to Wegovy, is working through phase 3 trials. At this rate, CagriSema could arrive sometime next year. Eli Lilly is also very active. Its experimental oral weight loss drug, orforglipron, has performed well in phase 3 studies. It could be the first small-molecule drug to hit the market; small-molecule drugs are easier and cheaper to manufacture. Its next-generation injectable therapy, retatrutide, is innovative in that it targets three separate hormones related to hunger. Retatrutide is also currently in phase 3 studies, and could arrive in 2027 if all goes well. Boehringer Ingelheim's survodutide, an injected therapy that could arrive in 2027, is arguably the only potential near-term competition worth noting. There aren't any other immediate threats to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly's dominance. The next hopeful, MariTide from Amgen, only begins phase 3 studies in March; if approved, its estimated market arrival would be in 2028. Barring something unexpected, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly appear well positioned to capture much of that explosive growth in the weight loss market over the coming years. The question is, which industry giant will do better? Wall Street is currently placing its money on Eli Lilly, as evidenced by the stock's significant valuation premium. Shares trade at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 62, versus just 22 for Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk's CagriSema has struggled to outperform existing treatments in clinical trials, while Eli Lilly's orforglipron has performed well. However, how patients choose treatments involves several factors, so it's not a sure thing that Eli Lilly will capture all this market share from Novo Nordisk. The best solution? Own both. One way to value them is by their PEG ratios, which weigh the stocks' valuations against the companies' expected growth rates: Novo Nordisk PEG ratio: 1.5 Eli Lilly PEG ratio: 1.9 Both companies are reasonably priced for their expected long-term earnings growth, currently 14% annualized for Novo Nordisk and 32% annualized for Eli Lilly. Of course, that could play out differently, but it's all the more reason to own both stocks. One way or another, these two companies will likely split the upside in the weight loss drug market. Before you buy stock in Novo Nordisk, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Novo Nordisk wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 173% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Justin Pope has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amgen and Pfizer. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Weight Loss Drug Stocks That Are Screaming Buys in June was originally published by The Motley Fool

Chrononutrition guide: Is when you eat as important as what you eat?
Chrononutrition guide: Is when you eat as important as what you eat?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Chrononutrition guide: Is when you eat as important as what you eat?

Americans have long heard about the health benefits of adhering to diets rich in fresh produce and whole grains and low in red meat and processed sugars. But they may not be aware of how meal timing can affect their health. A recent publication from the UF/IFAS department of food science and human nutrition describes chrononutrition, an emerging field of study that connects eating with circadian rhythm, the body's 24-hour internal clock. How someone schedules meals throughout the day can impact their weight and body mass index (BMI) as well as increase their odds of developing cardiometabolic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, according to the authors of the publication, an Ask IFAS guide. 'Healthy eating is not only what you eat but also how much you eat and when,' said doctoral candidate Kaylyn Koons, the publication's lead author. Franz Halberg, a Romanian-born physician, introduced the idea of chrononutrition in 1967. The concept is based on the premise that the sleep and wake cycle regulates bodily functions, including metabolism and digestion, so the timing, frequency and consistency of food intake affects health. There is a broad range of eating behaviors that influence chrononutrition, according to the UF/IFAS guide. One of the key behaviors relates to the 'eating window,' the time frame between the first meal of the day and the last. Optimizing that window — typically between 8 and 12 hours — could realign food intake with the circadian clock. In fact, a systematic review of studies on time-restricted eating with an eating window of 12 hours or less found an average weight loss of 3%, along with reductions in fasting blood glucose, systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, and LDL cholesterol levels. Many eating behaviors related to poor chrononutrition center around evening food consumption. Eating at or after 8 p.m. is associated with weight gain and metabolic disorders, for example. Potential reasons include the prevalence of poorer food choices at night and late eaters' propensity to stay up late, which can negatively impact sleep. Evening latency, the amount of time that lapses between eating the last meal of the day and sleeping, can also play a part, according to the guide. It describes a 2023 study of Malaysian college students which found that those who didn't observe a delay between eating dinner and sleeping were more likely to be underweight. 'This finding may seem counterintuitive because you might expect this behavior would reduce energy expenditure and promote weight gain rather than weight loss,' Koons said. 'But it could be associated with other adverse chrononutrition habits such as skipping meals or irregular meal timing, which lead to an overall reduced calorie intake.' Koons recommends anyone desiring to improve their chrononutrition examine their eating behaviors and identify chrononutrition-related behaviors that may be negatively affecting their health. Then they can set attainable goals to reduce the frequency of those behaviors. Patience is key, however, she said. 'Eating habits tend to be ingrained in routine and become habitual,' Koons said. 'It's important to remember that behavior change is difficult, and it takes time.' This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: When you eat may be as important as what you eat

Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk

Time​ Magazine

time2 hours ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk

When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store