GLP-1s for Pediatric Obesity + Plant-Based Diets: What It Means for Diabetes, Gut Health & Thyroid
===
[00:00:00]
All right. Welcome back to the Living Life Well show. Today, I'm excited to tackle two articles that have recently been in the literature, one surrounding children and GLP-1 usage, and another talking about a specific diet and whether it really confers health or not. So first things first, let's jump right in.
So first of all, what we talk about on this show is diabetes, diabetes reversal, thyroid disease, and gut health, and how that plays into your overall health. So with the recent GLP-1 trend in adults, we wanted to see how and what is going on with pediatric patients. So there was a recent article that was written that was just a retrospective study entitled Trends in GLP-1 [00:01:00] Receptor Agonist Prescription for Children Ages Eight to Eleven With Obesity.
This took place over 2019 to 2026 and it was published in the Journal of Pediatrics. So again, a very well-respected journal. Now, what this study did was just look at prescribing. They looked at who got prescribed the medications and what percentage of the patients. So for this study, what they did is they looked at data- From Epic and Epic i- being a electronic health record that is very popular throughout the country, country in many healthcare institutions.
And so in doing so, they had access to over 3.5 million children who fit this criteria of obese and between ages 8 and 11. And what they found [00:02:00] was that those... And again, specifically they looked at children that were defined as obese but did not have diabetes. That's who we're looking at.
Again, kind of tailoring back to our last episode about the CGMs and how they may or may not help those people who don't have diabetes or haven't been diagnosed with pre-diabetes yet. So in this case, we looked at GLP-1s between ages eight and 11 that were diagnosed as obese. And what they found was that the children in this group that were older were more likely to be prescribed the GLP-1s.
Female children were more likely to be prescribed the GLP-1s, and children that came from higher socioeconomic background were more likely to be prescribed the GLP-1s. And children with other [00:03:00] comorbidities, say, hypertension or other issues, maybe arthritis even to some degree were gonna be more likely to prescribe-- be prescribed GLP-1s.
What they found was that in 2019, only 0.03% Of these children were prescribed GLP-1s. Now, that has had a radical increase when you translate that forward into 2026. Now at a staggering 9.3%. That is a 310-fold increase. So this dependence upon a drug to really drive behavior when at their youngest ages, that's when really we can shape behavior most in our children, our pediatricians are reaching for the prescription pad.
Now, [00:04:00] for those with severe comorbidities, at the severe extremes of obesity i- in these situations, I agree with using something to help start to change behavior. But in most cases, what we're finding is that most likely this is a combination of parents not knowing how to approach the situation with their children, and a physician not knowing how to help the parents know how to approach the situation with their children.
So what we see here is a lack of knowledge. A lot of this lack of knowledge, even for our pediatricians, our well-meaning pediatricians, our family physicians, our internists, our physicians that are really there, even nutritionists to a certain degree and dieticians, that don't [00:05:00] really know what confers true health because of the slant that is there in the nutrition guidelines and the lack of knowledge that is being conferred to the physicians or the practitioners, with regards to what really constitutes good, true nutritional value.
Because there is only Just a handful of hours dedicated in medical school to this. In a couple of podcasts ago, you heard me talk about this with regards to a recent Texas Senate bill to increase up to 40 hours of nutrition education for physicians or future physicians going through medical school and, or residency.
So again, to me, this study just really highlights that gulf between what to do and what we can do. And the problem is, [00:06:00] is what we can do is so often rely on a medication. So the same thing that exists for these poor children, this, this 9.3% now of children that are on these medications, what's the endpoint?
How are they going to get off o- of this? This child may be nine, 10 years old, and we're gonna keep this child on that for indefinite decades? I don't think that's the right approach, and that is why we have this show, is because I want you to understand what confers true health. I want you to be able to look at some of these articles and be able to determine for yourself whether they were looking at it through a, a true good lens, or whether they were looking at it just to get the outcome that they wanted.
In this situation, I don't think there's much bias in that regard. I do think [00:07:00] that this was just purely an observational study, numbers in, numbers out, and there wasn't really any intervention. It was just wanting to see the prescribing habits of these physicians that were using this particular EMR to children who qualified as obese and br- were between ages 8 and 11.
Now, another article that we're gonna re- research and review here i- is an article that was recently published that was coming out as Food as Medicine. And as you know, I am a big proponent of really making sure that you understand what it is that you're eating so that you can make the best choices for yourself.
Now, this article came out in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease, and the article was entitled Plant-Based Medically Tailored Groceries from a Food Pantry and Adult [00:08:00] Cardiometabolic Outcomes. So this came out just this month in October of, of 2026. Now, this was essentially done in Massachusetts.
So it was done through the Massis- Massachusetts General Hospital system particularly something called the Revere Food Pantry. Now, the study was designed so that anybody could receive food from this pantry. The food was primarily fresh fruits and vegetables, canned beans, and/or nut butters, and whole grains were given to these families.
And in their estimations, they were giving quote, "Enough for three meals a day for up to a week." So enough for essentially, um, you to have a week's worth of vegetables for that, that person and [00:09:00] every adult individual within the home. Now, they ended up enrolling about a total of-- almost two hundred people.
However a large portion of these people were under eighteen, so they were excluded from the study. Also, there were at least ten pregnant women during the course of the study, so, so they got excluded as well. So many more got excluded from the study than were actually included in the study.
Ultimately, after loss to follow-up and/or information that they were wanting before the program started, such as weight, BMI blood pressure, and some different measures, including A1c it got whittled all the way down to only sixty-eight patients. Now, out of these sixty-eight patients, the actual demographics of them were that they were seventy percent women, the average age was fifty-seven and out of that [00:10:00] roughly about eighty percent were considered obese and/or obese with diabetes and/or high blood pressure.
So- Decent study would be nice if it was a l- little more evenly distributed between the sexes. The vast majority of the patients were non-English speaking, . Most of them were also of lower socioeconomic status. So just like in the previous article, it indicated that the people that were most likely to get the GLP-1 medications were those that were at the higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
In this case, it, it is the reverse of that. The vast majority of clients were on Medicare or Medicaid, depending upon age and income status, and a very small percentage had private insurance. And so the two groups here [00:11:00] between the article over here with the access to the GLP-1s and the article here with the access to the food, much, much different.
Now, what the study ultimately showed was that people that received 100 of these packages, because they did this study over almost three years, about two-point-seven years is, is what they actually came out to, so a little over 30 months. But basically, what they found was, people that r- received and continued to receive at least 100 of these bags of fruits and vegetables and whole grains and canned beans and nut butter that was a week's worth, those people resulted in about a three-point lower overall diastolic blood pressure decrease.
Okay? Um- Not earth-shattering, right? [00:12:00] Well, you have to really get into the study to really understand was this significant or not. Well, when you look at some of the other populations with regards to their systolic blood pressure and their diastolic blo- blood pressure, those gains were greater, so the more obese.
Out of the study, 20% of that 68 were actually normal weight. And so out of that percentage, the likelihood that those had less co- comorbidities like diabetes, like, um, hypertension, is going to be lower. And so therefore, 20% out of those 68 even narrowed that, that study a bit further. In addition, the study did not tailor the bag of fruits and vegetables and whole grains and nut butters [00:13:00] and beans to the individual disease processes that were in the home.
Therefore, these patients were eating were given true, true whole foods, which is great, but this again really points to the fact that you can't just say, "Eat your fruits and veggies," in my opinion. Yes, this did result in a three-point decrease in the diastolic blood pressure overall, which is great, which is a good thing, which possibly could confer to better health over the long term.
However It points to the fact that this in- isn't individualized. It did not give specific education to the individuals involved. We don't know, did they only eat, you know, the, the highest starch, highest sugar-containing foods out of these packages of groceries? How much of it [00:14:00] did they actually consume?
Did they consume that three meals a day, seven days a, a, in a week and actually use all that food? Or did they throw most of it away? And so there were a lot of limitations with this study, and even so, it still showed improvement. Now, am I suggesting that you go out and become plant-based? Absolutely not.
Is that something, a strategy that we use within our programs? Yes, it is, and many times we do use that for certain individuals. But who is going to benefit most from this type of an intervention? Those that are more inflamed. So patients that have higher blood sugars, patients that have more signs of inflammation like liver disease and/or high C-reactive [00:15:00] proteins, high sed rates, other signs of inflammation, other signs of gut health, more antibodies present to your thyroid.
All these are gonna be signs of significant inflammation in someone who might benefit from an inflammation reset, going down to plant-based and/or just minimally animal-based for just a short period of time, a week to two weeks. Usually about ten days is what we recommend. And even within that, all vegetables are good, however, depending upon what your particular situation is, some may be a little bit more likely to increase or contribute to continued inflammation than others.
And so What I am telling you is, is this, this was a decent study, by no means was a great study, and even so, with its limitations, it showed benefit [00:16:00] when you participate in a whole food diet in some form or fashion, that over time you are going to get benefit. What we know from this study is this was not the only food these participants had access to.
I am sure that all of them, or the vast, vast majority of even these 68 were eating some form of animal protein. How much processed foods and other things that were going on, we don't know either. And so it's, it again, just goes to the fact that when you read a study and they have these shocking headlines or maybe eh, kinda inconsequential seeming headlines like this one might, you've really gotta dig into the weeds and understand for yourself what the truth of the situation is behind that information.
And really, that's what we try to do here at Live Life Well. We want to get [00:17:00] down into the weeds of you, understand you, understand where you're coming from, so that we can help you live a full life with as least restrictive of a diet and lifestyle as possible so that you can achieve your goals and be around for your kids, your grandkids for all those things that you wanna accomplish in life.
So I, I hope this has been informative. I hope this has been a- beneficial. And if this sounds like something you might be interested in, I would ask you to go to our website and you can find out more about us. You can click on the link to schedule a free discovery call there to find out a little bit more for yourself.
Thanks, and God bless.
That's it for this episode of The Living Life Well Show. If you like what you've heard and want to learn more or want to know how to put this into practice for yourself, go to [00:18:00] livelifewellclinic.com. Until next time, this is Dr. Jon Skelton saying go out and live the truth so you can live life well. The preceding is for entertainment and educational purposes only.
It is not meant to be used to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure any condition. The information contained in this show does not substitute the need for a qualified medical professional, nor is it meant to provide medical advice or services. If you feel information presented in this show may apply to you, we recommend you seek out the help of a qualified medical professional who can evaluate and treat your specific concerns.
