A patient of mine, a veteran who had tried to quit smoking for over a decade, told me that after he started a GLP-1 drug for his diabetes, he lost interest in cigarettes. He didn’t use a patch. He didn’t set a quit date. He simply lost interest. It happened without effort.

Another patient on one of these drugs for weight loss told me that alcohol had lost its pull – after years of failed attempts to quit.

People struggling with many addictions, ranging from opioids to gambling, are reporting similar experiences in clinics, on social media and around dinner tables. None of them started these drugs to quit. This pattern of people losing their cravings across a broad range of addictive substances has no precedent in medicine.

But my patients were giving me an important clue. People taking GLP-1 drugs often talk about “food noise” vanishing: the constant mental chatter about food that dominated their days simply goes quiet. But my patients were reporting that it wasn’t just food: They were noticing that the preoccupation with smoking, drinking and using drugs that drives people back despite their best intentions to stop was going quiet too.

As a physician whose patients are often on GLP-1 drugs, and as a scientist who works on answering pressing public health questions – from long COVID to medication safety – I saw a problem hiding in plain sight: Many addictions have no approved treatment. The few medications that exist are massively underutilized, and none works across all substances. The idea that a drug already taken by millions might do what no addiction treatment has done before was too important to ignore.

My team and I set out to test whether GLP-1 drugs – medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro and Zepbound), originally developed for diabetes and then approved for obesity – could do what no existing addiction treatment does: curb craving itself.

Our evidence strongly suggests they can.

Biological basis of cravings

The hormone that these drugs mimic – GLP-1 – is not only produced in the gut. It is also active in the brain, where the receptors it binds to cluster in regions governing reward, motivation and stress – the same circuitry that gets hijacked by addiction. At therapeutic doses, GLP-1 drugs cross the blood-brain barrier and dampen dopamine signaling in the brain’s core reward center, making addictive substances less rewarding.

GLP-1 drugs seem to inhibit cravings for several different substances in multiple animal models. For instance, rodents given GLP-1 drugs drink less alcoholself-administer less cocaine and show less interest in nicotine. When researchers gave semaglutide to green vervet monkeys – primates that voluntarily drink alcohol much like humans do – the animals drank less without showing signs of nausea or changes in water intake. This suggests the drug lowered the reward value of alcohol rather than making the animals feel sick.

From animals to people

To find out whether these drugs have a similar effect on people, we turned to the electronic health records of more than 600,000 patients with Type 2 diabetes at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – one of the largest health care databases in the world.

We designed a study that applied the rigor of randomized controlled trials – the gold standard in medicine – to real-world data. We compared people who started GLP-1 drugs to people who did not, adjusting for differences in health history, demographics and other factors, and followed both groups for three years.

My team and I asked two questions: For people already struggling with addiction, did the drugs reduce overdoses, drug-related hospitalizations and deaths? And for people with no prior substance use disorder, did GLP-1 drugs reduce their risk of developing one across all major addictive substances: alcohol, opioids, cocaine, cannabis and nicotine?

What we found was striking. In the group already struggling with addiction, there were 50% fewer deaths due to substance use among those taking GLP-1 drugs compared with those who were not. We also found 39% fewer overdoses, 26% fewer drug-related hospitalizations and 25% fewer suicide attempts. Over three years, this translated to roughly 12 fewer serious events in total per 1,000 people using GLP-1 drugs – including two fewer deaths.

Reductions of this magnitude are rare in addiction medicine – and what’s remarkable is that the finding came from drugs initially designed for diabetes, later repurposed for obesity and never intended to treat addiction.

The drugs also appeared to prevent addiction from developing in the first place. Among people with no prior substance use disorder, those taking GLP-1 drugs had an 18% lower risk of developing alcohol use disorder, a 25% lower risk of opioid use disorder and an approximately 20% lower risk of cocaine and nicotine dependence. Over three years, this translated to roughly six to seven fewer new diagnoses per 1,000 GLP-1 users.

With tens of millions of people already using GLP-1 drugs, the reductions in deaths, overdoses, hospitalizations and new diagnoses could translate into thousands of prevented serious events each year.

Converging evidence

Our findings align with a growing body of evidence.

A Swedish nationwide study of 227,000 people with alcohol use disorder found that those taking GLP-1 drugs had 36% lower risk of alcohol-related hospitalizations. This is more than double the 14% reduction that the same study found with naltrexone, which was the best-performing medication approved for treatment of alcohol use disorder in that analysis. Other observational studies have linked GLP-1 drugs to lower rates of new and recurring alcohol use disorderreduced diagnoses and relapse in cannabis use disorderfewer health care visits for nicotine dependence and lower risk of opioid overdose.

Meanwhile, randomized controlled trials that directly test whether these drugs help people with addiction also show promise. In one trial, semaglutide reduced both craving and alcohol consumption in people with alcohol use disorder. In another, dulaglutide reduced drinking. More than a dozen additional trials are already underway or actively enrolling, and several more are planned.

The future of addiction treatment

GLP-1 drugs are the first type of medication to show potential benefit across multiple substance types simultaneously. And unlike existing addiction medications, which are prescribed by specialists and remain vastly underused, GLP-1 drugs are already prescribed at enormous scale by primary care doctors. The delivery system to reach millions of patients already exists.

The consistency of GLP-1 effectiveness across alcohol, opioids, cocaine, nicotine and cannabis suggests these drugs may act on a shared vulnerability underlying addiction – not on any single substance pathway. If confirmed, that would represent a fundamental shift in how society understands addiction and how doctors treat it.

Some unanswered questions remain, though, about how these drugs would affect addiction. Many people who take GLP-1 drugs to treat obesity or diabetes discontinue them; afterward, their appetite typically returns and they regain the weight they lost. Whether the same rebound would occur with addiction, and what it would mean for someone in recovery to face the roar of craving again, is unknown. Nor is it clear whether the benefits persist over years of continuous use, or whether the brain adapts in ways that dampen those effects.

Also, because GLP-1 drugs engage the brain’s reward circuitry – the same system that governs not just craving but everyday motivation – prolonged use could, in theory, dampen motivational drive in some people. Whether that might affect real-world outcomes, such as initiative, competitive drive or performance at work, remains an open question.

What comes next

GLP-1 drugs have not been approved for addiction, and there is not yet enough evidence to prescribe them solely for that purpose. But for millions of people already weighing whether to start a GLP-1 drug for diabetes, obesity or another approved indication, it is one more factor worth considering.

A patient living with diabetes who is also trying to quit smoking might reasonably choose a GLP-1 drug over another glucose-lowering medication, not because it is approved for smoking cessation, but because it may help them quit, a benefit that other diabetes drugs do not offer. Similarly, for people living with obesity who also struggle with alcohol, the potential for benefit beyond weight loss could be one more reason to consider a GLP-1 drug.

If additional trials confirm that they effectively curb cravings across addictive substances, these drugs could begin to close one of the most consequential treatment gaps in medicine. And the most promising lead in addiction in decades will have come not from a deliberate search but from patients reporting a benefit no one anticipated. Like my patient who quit smoking after a lifetime of trying, it happened without effort.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Therapist shares 5 ways to be ‘less annoying’ in conversations and it’s a must-watch
    Photo credit: CanvaTwo women having an enjoyable conversation.
    ,

    Therapist shares 5 ways to be ‘less annoying’ in conversations and it’s a must-watch

    None of these habits are malicious. But they sure are annoying.

    Most people think they come across as helpful, engaged, and supportive in conversations. But according to one therapist, these talking habits may be sending a very different message than intended.

    Jeffery, a licensed therapist on TikTok, breaks down five common conversational mistakes people make that can come across as annoying. In the post, viewers didn’t just agree with the list. They began recognizing the same behaviors in friends, family, and even themselves.

    Making the conversation about yourself

    People can mistake sharing personal experiences for the perfect way to show empathy and compassion. It begins innocently enough when someone opens up about something personal. Unfortunately, the listener responds with a story of their own. Both people are trying to connect, but the focus has now completely shifted.

    “When someone constantly redirects conversations back to themselves, people start feeling unimportant,” Jeffery explains. “When every story somehow becomes about you, people stop feeling listened to and start feeling dismissed.”

    A 2023 experiment suggested that reciprocal disclosure increases interpersonal trust. However, an imbalance in the conversation can create feelings of one-sidedness. This “stealing of the spotlight” reduces connection.

    defensive conversation, psychological defensiveness, misunderstanding, negative behavior
    An unhappy couple gets defensive.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Getting super defensive

    Few things shut down a conversation faster than defensiveness. Even simple misunderstandings can turn tense when people instinctively try to correct rather than understand.

    “If every single piece of feedback turns into an excuse or an argument, people eventually stop being honest with you,” Jeffery points out. “Constructive feedback and even some criticism is not always an attack. Sometimes people are simply trying to improve the relationship or communicate something important to you.”

    Psychologists describe this behavior as “psychological defensiveness.” Interestingly, a 2024 study found that defensiveness can be reduced if people are warned beforehand in the right way. Conversation works best when it is framed as a collaborative effort rather than an educational or teaching moment.

    polygraph, apology, interrogation, Marcus Aurelius
    A woman receives a polygraph test.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Drilling people after they apologize

    There is a delicate balance between asking for clarity after an apology and turning the conversation into an interrogation.

    “If someone apologizes and you accept it, but then you keep hammering them over the mistake afterward, it will become exhausting and very annoying,” Jeffery adds. “If people feel like apologizing never actually ends the conflict, they actually become less likely to take accountability in the future.”

    People often mistake feedback for a personal attack on their own truth. There’s a popular statement often attributed to Marcus Aurelius claiming that much of what we perceive is shaped by interpretation rather than fact. People can share their opinions. We don’t have to defend ourselves against all of them.

    Stop constantly complaining

    Everyone deserves an opportunity to vent. But when every conversation circles back to frustration without change, it can become emotionally exhausting for the listener. Over time, even the most supportive friends can start to pull back.

    “Talking about problems is normal,” says Jeffery. “But if almost every interaction revolves around negativity, people start associating you with emotional exhaustion. Nobody wants to leave conversations feeling drained every single time.”

    This pattern of constant, dissatisfied venting has even found its way into pop culture. Maybe you remember the infamous George Costanza from the award-winning show Seinfeld. His nonstop stream of complaints was a running joke about negativity. It’s fun to watch and laugh at, but far less enjoyable to encounter in real life.

    negative emotions, conversational balance, validation, comparison
    A conversation turns to comparison.
    Photo credit: Canva

    One-upping people’s negative emotions

    Sometimes, someone takes a risk and shares a particularly challenging experience. In an attempt to show empathy, saying “I get it” might land more like “that’s not a big deal.” It’s important to offer emotional validation rather than comparison.

    “If someone opens up about something painful and your immediate reaction is to explain how you had it worse, it can make the other person feel completely invalidated,” Jeffery says. “They just want to feel heard and emotionally supported in that moment.”

    A 2023 study revealed that someone trying to relate can sometimes redirect attention away from the original speaker. People feel more supported when their emotions are directly acknowledged instead of reframed or one-upped.

    self-reflection, comment section, familiar conversations, behaviors
    A woman reflected in mirrors.
    Photo credit: Canva

    The comments quickly turn to self-reflection

    Many people said Jeffrey’s list felt immediately familiar, whether in conversations with friends or in their own behavior. These annoying habits became surprisingly relatable once someone pointed them out. Here are some of those thoughts:

    “silently reposting this for one of my friends to find”

    “The first one has ended relationships for me, not because I do it, but because they did it. It’s absolutely exhausting.”

    “I know one of my friends are gonna tag me in this later”

    “I’ve noticed over the years that my annoying personality will surface when I’m trying to protect myself..”

    “I have such a hard time with #1 and I am so aware of it sometimes but I find it so difficult to not do when talking to someone.”

    “I do all of these maybe I should go back to therapy”

    What might be surprising is that many of these habits are things people slip into without realizing it. Jeffrey’s list doesn’t suggest people are intentionally difficult. He points out that annoying conversations can arise from good intentions, too. Allowing a person to be heard can matter more than offering advice that might fix the problem.

  • More women are rejecting ‘optimization culture’ for realistic wellness plans
    Photo credit: CanvaA woman intensely exercises, left, and a morning stretch, right.

    Being fit used to mean getting enough sleep, drinking more water, and moving your body, perhaps in a daily walk. With the explosion of social media and digital self-help trends, finding an acceptable level of wellness can feel like stepping into a full-time job with daily performance reviews.

    For many women, what started as self-care has slowly become another exhausting form of self-optimization. And increasingly, they’re pretty much done with it. According to Women’s Business Daily, one of the biggest wellness shifts happening right now is a move away from extreme routines. Women want habits that actually fit into real life.

    fitness culture, self-optimization, realistic wellness, mindful living
    An intense workout.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Wellness feels like a full-time job

    Instead of chasing perfection, more women are choosing what can be described as a more realistic approach to wellness, incorporating sustainable routines built around balance and emotional well-being rather than climbing a never-ending ladder of constant improvement.

    The shift comes after a solid decade of what many refer to online as “optimization culture.” This exhausting idea assumes that every part of life needs to be carefully measured, improved, and optimized.

    Experts believe this mindset is not only making people miserable; it’s unsustainable.

    wellness overload, social wellness, health fatigue, hustle culture
    An exhausting routine.
    Photo credit: Canva

    A backlash against the “always improve yourself” culture

    A recent article in Psychology Today found that “wellnessmaxxing” trends turn self-care into another form of anxiety. This is especially true when routines become so demanding that people feel more guilt than relief. As creators post TikToks showing themselves “maxing out” in some kind of self-congratulation, they spread unhelpful expectations that no longer promote self-care.

    Verywell Health explains that these influencers broadcast an all-consuming performance metric. People now face a painful realization that they can never do enough. It’s hard to miss the irony that wellness has begun to feel unhealthy.

    Women are increasingly embracing low-pressure routines instead of overly aspirational ones. Think walks instead of cross-training, and a morning meditation instead of a week-long stay at a Tibetan monastery. It’s okay to just eat more vegetables instead of a perfectly balanced daily nutrition plan of 150 grams of protein, wheatgrass smoothies, and specifically rated pH-balanced alkaline water.

    After all the extreme exercises, self-help books, and sophisticated meal plans, it’s time to get back to basics. Here’s one version of a realistic plan: drink some water, get outside, and try to sleep a little better.

    anti-hustle, performance pressure, happiness, lifestyle
    A casual walk with a dog.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Getting back to the basics

    A beauty editor writing for Who What Wear documented her attempt to follow a social-media-inspired wellness reset. With all the expensive and complicated habits she hoped would unlock the “incredibly high-functioning, ultra-productive version” of herself, she came away understanding that she should stick with the basics.

    Modern life already asks women to juggle careers, caregiving, appearance standards, finances, and relationships. Somewhere along the journey, wellness became just one more category to add to the pile.

    work life balance, culture, community, women wellness
    Maintaining a perfect life balance.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Women are choosing simple, sustainable routines

    Finding realistic wellness is a trend that reflects a growing desire for community-centered wellness rather than isolated self-improvement. Instead of wellness looking like a solo pursuit for an achievement award, many women are leaning toward connection: walking groups, shared meals, accountability with friends, and being honest about feeling burned out on all of it.

    The Times reports that people feel walking groups are less intimidating and more emotionally supportive. People don’t just want fitness; they want to belong to something.

    A 2025 study in Frontiers in Psychology focused on the benefits of women finding social support groups. Programs that incorporated women’s preferences into their daily lives were more likely to be enjoyed and maintained.

    Wellness cultures have told women the answer is to do more: more discipline, more self-reflection, more perfect sleep, more work dedication, more family direction, more effort.

    Making life more enjoyable and realistic can help well-being feel easier to maintain. A joyful life is better lived “in” than constantly measured “against” unrealistic expectations.

  • Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language
    Photo credit: MoMo Productions/DigitalVision via Getty ImagesEmphasizing the sounds of certain words to young children can help them retain language, not confuse them about speaking properly.

    Many parents have heard the warning: Don’t use baby talk with babies and toddlers. Instead, caregivers are often encouraged to speak properly and use adultlike language, out of concern that simplified speech could confuse children or delay language development.

    But my research, which I highlighted in in my new book, “Beyond Words,” suggests the opposite is true. The sing-song voice many adults instinctively use with infants, sometimes called “baby talk” but more accurately known as “parentese” or infant-directed speech, actually helps children learn language.

    Far from confusing babies, exaggerating phrases like “Loooook at the doggie!” capture their attention, help them detect patterns in speech and strengthen social bonding.

    And the funny mistakes children make along the way, such as saying “goed,” instead of “went,” or “mouses” instead of “mice,” are not signs that children are learning language incorrectly. They are evidence that children are actively working out the rules of language for themselves.

    A man holds his hands away from his face and leans over a small baby lying on a bed and smiles.
    Speaking ‘parentese’ to a child doesn’t involve nonsense words. BjelicaS/E+ via Getty Images

    What parentese really is

    When many people think of baby talk, they imagine nonsense phrases like “goo goo ga ga” or made-up words like “num nums.” But that’s not what linguists and developmental psychologists mean by parentese.

    Parentese uses real words and grammatically correct sentences, but with exaggerated intonation, a higher pitch, stretched-out vowels and a slower rhythm. Think of the way a caregiver might naturally say: “Hi, baaaaby! Are you huuungry?”

    There is little evidence that occasional playful nonsense words harm children’s language development. But studies suggest that parentese in particular helps babies pay attention to speech, recognize patterns and engage socially.

    Adults across cultures tend to speak this way to infants instinctively. Even people who swear they never use baby talk often slip into it around babies.

    Researchers have found that infants actually prefer listening to parentese over regular adult speech. The exaggerated sounds and slower pacing make language easier to process. Babies are better able to pick out individual sounds, notice word boundaries and recognize patterns. In other words, parentese helps tune babies into language.

    It also strengthens emotional connection. Language learning does not happen in isolation. Babies learn through warm, responsive interaction with caregivers during feeding, play, bath time and everyday routines.

    Interestingly, humans are not the only ones who respond to this style of communication. Studies have even shown that cats react more positively when people use a baby-talk voice with them.

    Babies are not passive learners

    Children do not learn language simply by copying adults word for word. They actively test hypotheses about how language works. That is why toddlers make predictable and surprisingly logical mistakes.

    One common example is overgeneralization. A child learns that people form the past tense of many verbs by adding “-ed,” so they produce forms like “goed,” “eated” or “comed.”

    These are not random errors. In fact, they show that the child has understood a grammatical rule and is trying to apply it consistently. The problem is simply that English is full of irregular exceptions. The same thing happens with plurals. Children may say “foots” instead of “feet” or “mouses” instead of “mice.” Again, the logic behind these errors is sound.

    Linguists sometimes say that children are little scientists, constantly testing patterns and revising their understanding as they receive more input from the world around them.

    Why toddlers call everything a ‘dog’

    Young children also make predictable mistakes with meaning.

    A toddler might learn the word “dog” and then use it for every four-legged animal they encounter. Linguists call this overextension. On the flip side, some children use words too narrowly. A child may use “dog” only for the family pet and not recognize that other dogs belong in the same category. Linguists call this tendency underextension.

    These mistakes reveal how children organize and categorize the world around them. They are gradually mapping words onto objects, people and experiences.

    Pronouns are another tricky area. Small children often confuse “me” and “you” because these words constantly shift depending on who is speaking. If a parent says, “I’ll pick you up,” the child hears themselves called “you.” But when they try to repeat the sentence, they may not yet understand that the labels switch from speaker to speaker.

    This is why toddlers sometimes say things that sound unintentionally cute or confusing. But beneath the confusion is a sophisticated learning process.

    Even the Cookie Monster gets it wrong

    Children’s speech errors are so recognizable that they often appear in popular culture. Sesame Street’s character Cookie Monster famously says things like “Me want cookie,” while Elmo often refers to himself in the third person: “Elmo wants this.” These speech patterns mirror real stages of child language development. Young children commonly confuse pronouns or refer to themselves by name before mastering forms like “I,” “me” and “mine.”

    Despite occasional complaints from adults, there is no evidence that hearing this kind of speech harms children’s language development. If anything, it reflects the natural experimentation children go through.

    A Cookie Monster puppet stands near a black tarp with its mouth open and holds a cookie.
    The Cookie Monster saying ‘Me want cookie’ won’t teach babies and young kids to speak incorrectly. Brian Killian/WireImage via Getty Images

    ‘Pasketti’ and ‘wabbit’

    Pronunciation develops gradually too. Young children often simplify difficult sounds and groups of consonants. “Spaghetti” becomes “pasketti,” “rabbit” becomes “wabbit” and “yellow” may come out as “lellow.”

    Speech-language specialists call these simplifications phonological processes. They are a normal part of development because some sounds are physically harder to produce than others. Sounds such as r, th, sh and ch tend to develop later because they require more precise control of the tongue and mouth.

    Most children naturally outgrow these pronunciation patterns as their speech matures. However, persistent difficulties can sometimes signal a speech or language disorder, which may require professional support.

    A graphic image shows a young child's head with various colorful thought bubbles inside.
    Children don’t learn language by copying adults word for word. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition. DrAfter123/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    Mistakes are part of learning

    Parents are often under enormous pressure to do everything right, including helping their children learn to speak a language. But children do not learn language by avoiding mistakes. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition.

    Parentese helps babies focus on speech and engage socially. The funny mistakes toddlers make reveal that they are actively piecing together the complex system of language and are often signs of normal development. Language acquisition is messy, creative and remarkably sophisticated.

    Speaking in an exaggerated sing-song voice to a baby is not something parents and caregivers need to feel embarrassed about.

    Far from harming language acquisition, it may help lay the foundation for it.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language

Health

People who dread working out are trying ‘micro walks,’ and the results feel great

Health

Most people don’t know what they don’t know, but think they do – correcting your metaknowledge can make you a better teacher and learner

Health

You can change your emotions – but it’s a 2‑step process that takes some effort