On May 28, 2:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:02:14 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

The possible complications of bariatric surgery have nothing to
do with the mysterious effect where diabetes is reversed within days
in many patients.

What's so "mysterious" about them?

They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets.

Well, for one thing they are NOT on a LC diet.

Yes, they are. ~ 90-100 grams of carbs per day.

They are also on a low fat diet. When you're eating
600 calories a day, it's low everything. But that is only
for the first couple of weeks. The reversal of diabetes
continues and has been verified in patients for 10 years
plus. By then it's safe to assume they are no longer
eating 600 calories a day. More like 4X that. I also
haven't seen anything that says that diet is typically
LC years after surgery. In short, while the 600 calorie
diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.





And for another the complete reversal of diabetes occurs
within a couple of days.

Diet can do that too.

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/03/28/w...-cure-for-diab...

"A recent study entitled Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalization of
beta cell function in association with decrease pancreas and liver
triglycerides proved that diet alone could reverse type 2 diabetes.
The bottom line: A dramatic diet change (protein shake, low glycemic
load, plant-based low-calorie diet but no exercise) in diabetics
reversed most features of diabetes within one week and all features by
eight weeks. That’s right; diabetes was reversed in one week."

There's nothing "mysterious" about it.

Yeah, as usual YOU know the absolute answer that the
rest of the medical community is just beginning to research.
I guess they should just listen to you and save a lot of
money.




Nor with the false comparison of a fat fast to the
diet of post bariatric surgery patients.

What's "false" about it?

Because the diet of post bariatric patients is NOT a
fat fast.

For the second time, Doug never said it was. He said a fat fast may be
enough to affect certain metabolic changes that would negate the need
for bariatric surgery.

He didn't say the POST-BARIATRIC DIET IS A FAT FAST.

Got it now?

Probably not.

You seemed to have left those adverse effects out.

I was NOT debating the pros or cons of bariatric surgery.

Sure you were. *You were in act of worshipping the medical industry
again. "If it's surgery, it must be good!"

You're just amazing. Any reasonable person can go back
and look at what was discussed. The specific and only
point being discussed was the mysterious reversal of
diabetes in bariatric bypass patients. But, I know. It's
not mysterious to you because you know that LC is
responsible. I can see how easily confused you are.

As for worshipping the medical industry, I tend to treat
it all with an even hand. You on the other hand will pull
one study that supports your belief system and treat
that as golden, while slamming the other 99.99% of
medicine and ignoring it because it doesn't support
your loon positions:

HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
HIV is harmless
HPV isn't a cause of ovarian cancer
No virus can cause cancer
AIDS is the result of poor nutrition, not enough sleep, poor
sanitation
AIDS is confined to gay men, drug abusers and hemophiliacs

What else would you like to add to your list today?





Because you're a stupid little schmuck.

That should help your reputation here.





Neither was James who brought it up. *So, there was no
need to discuss the adverse effects.

Of course there is! *Only idiots talk about the merits of bariatric
surgery without also mentioning all the many dangerous side effects.

We were not listing the merits. We were discussing one very
narrow aspect of bariatric surgery. I see the fat fast was mentioned.
Why don't you condemn and go after Doug for not mentioning
the dangers and side effects? Note, I don't have a problem with
him not mentioning it. Just if that's going to be the new standard,
that when ever discussing anything here we have to list all the
positives and negatives, then you should apply it uniformly.
Why don't you do that with your own advice to treat AIDS with
diet and sleep instead of drugs?





The sole issue was Doug trying to attribute
the mysterious effects seen in these patients to a LC
diet. *Which is wrong.

Doug, being of sound mind, wasn't attributing anything, he was
suggesting that there's nothing mysterious about it, that diet alone
can produce the same effects in most people, and without undergoing
dangerous surgery.

Which is attributing the mysterious effects to a LC diet.
Now unless you can show us that these bariatric patients
are on a LC diet 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years after
surgery, I say attributing the reversal of diabetes to LC is
wrong. So, where is your proof? Let me guess. As usual
you have no proof.




But I'll defer to Doug on that.

You think you're winning credibility or arguments here by
using vulgarity?

I don't give a crap. It's fun to call a spade a spade, and an asshole
an asshole.

Asshole.


Classic. But it does show folks here what you're all about.