I've always been naturally slim and people my whole life have been telling me I look 10-15 years younger than my actual age... the "Ozempic face" is a totally different look, it makes you look gaunt and dying.
This is just not true, and as I've stated, it's because you've always been skinny.
There's no magic sauce in ozempic that makes you lose more buccal fat than other weight loss methods. That's just not real, it doesn't exist.
When you go from lots of buccal fat to no buccal fat, you will look gaunt in comparison. You've always had low fat so there's no frame of reference, so nobody calls you gaunt.
But, if you gained say 30 pounds, you would look much less gaunt than you currently do.
Either that or you're not as slim as you think you are. At 5'9 a normal BMI sits at 135 pounds for a man - you need to get very thin to have thin cheeks. Its possible you're slim, but not slim enough to have slim cheeks.
Also you lose buccal fat as you age. But ozempic does not age you.
And then of course fat distribution varies person to person. You might be slim but have abnormally large amounts of buccal fat. That can happen, but it doesn't mean that if you got thin via ozempic you'd lose the buccal fat. Again, there's no mechanism for that.
If you still don't believe me, just compare someone thin via ozempic versus someone naturally thin at the exact same weight and height and gender. Notice the buccal fat - the naturally thin person doesn't have more. It just feels that way, because you've never seen them with more buccal fat so the amount they have seems "right". Whereas, for the ozempic person, it seems less.
You're dismissing a claimed observation without evidence. I have no horse in this race but I'll comment that you appear to be attempting to claim that there's no difference between "skinny" and "crypt keeper". That's a preposterous position to take. The various terminology exists because people use it to describe real world differences. For example skinny, gangly, and gaunt aren't the same thing (although there is often significant overlap).
I'm explaining why your claimed observation is bullshit.
And, for the record, you haven't provided any evidence either. You're just "saying your observations".
And, let's all be real here, skinny person to skinny person. Most skinny people are extraordinarily biased against ozempic because they lose moral high ground to people they dislike.
I think a lot of skinny people want to desperately believe they are special or better in some ways than ozempic users. For a lot of them, being skinny is all they have: (
But that's not the case. That's something I'm fine with, I suggest you get there too.
I'm not the same person you were responding to earlier? You seem rather emotionally wound up in all of this. Someone doesn't need "evidence" to say "I noticed A". The evidence is right there - they're claiming to have seen it.
Among other things, you've put yourself in the position of claiming - but not arguing, because you provide no reasoning to engage with - that there are no black swans in the world. It's entirely untenable.
What they saw might have been an outlier. Perhaps they misunderstood. They might be confused or uniformed or any number of things. They could even be lying outright! But to respond by dismissing a claimed observation without evidence or reason is not a constructive attitude and I would even argue anti-intellectual.
What I'm claiming is there's zero evidence that ozempic causes buccal fat loss more than any other weight loss methods. There isn't even a mechanism for that. We even know for a fact that spot reducing fat is impossible.
If you claim differently, the burden of proof is on YOU. Not me.
Your observations be damned. Elephant in the room: observations from biased actors are less than worthless.
The reason this observation came to be is because people seek an easy way to punch down on ozempic users and differentiate their weight status from ozempic users. I've already explained that.
