" wrote:

For example, this blog raise the
possibility that the remission of diabetes type 2 in gastric bypass
could be due to the patients simply eating less food.

That's the very first thing I noticed about it. Get the
surgery and you're instantly on a program far more
strict than Atkins Induction, yet plenty of type 2
diabetics who go on Atkins Induction find they go
asymptomatic without meds.

Geez, I would
expect that researchers at a place like Cornell Medical center would
have the basic sense to test for this, which would be trivial.

If so I'd sure like to see the data that compares folks
put on a diet more restrictive than Atkins Induction
without the surgery compared to folks forced into it
because of the surgery. It's quite possible they've
never done such a study, or that their data is poor
because the non-surgery folks are self reporting and
the surgery folks have forced total adherence.

This bypass effect results in remission within days.

As opposed to Atkins Induction which appears to do
the same with probably lower result percentages.

*Surely they have data
and experience with other obese people with type 2 that have been on
severely restricted diets for a week to rule that effect out.

I'm far from convinced of this. There are still studies
coming out that compared whole grains (oatmeal)
against refined grains (frosted flakes) that give the
obvious data that frosted flakes are worse, but the
conclusion is that after comparing grain to grain it
turns out that grain is good. With studies having
such poor logic getting published, I want to see the
data that compares folks in resident programs fed the
same thing as the surgery folks.

As
well as the studies with rats. *Are we to believe they are so stupid
as to not test this hypothesis on the rats, where they found the
bypass effect to work, and where they can clearly control the food
intake? * So, when some blog starts hurling stuff like that around, my
BS detector goes off.

Is the data there for rats? I want the data for humans.