A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 28th, 2012, 12:08 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On May 27, 3:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:06:19 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]





Which is a cause and which is the effect? *It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory.


Why? I hadn't heard that at all.


The change in hormones is immediate presumably because most of the
stomach is bypassed and is not stimulated by eating.


The not eating part is caused by the band. *It can as easily be caused
by doing the fat fast. *That should trigger the same metabolic changes.


So you say, without any evidence whatever to support it.
Have you not seen the reports and research going on to
understand the mystifying changes scene in most of
these patients within days of the surgery. *Like the
complete reversal of diabetes?


Or the adverse effects:


The possible complications of bariatric surgery have nothing to
do with the mysterious effect where diabetes is reversed within days
in many patients. Nor with the false comparison of a fat fast to the
diet of post bariatric surgery patients.





..
I think just about anything is worth a try, before considering
bariatric surgery. Even the fat fast (under a doctor's supervision).


But no one was arguing that point.
  #12  
Old May 28th, 2012, 12:30 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On 27/05/2012 1:00 PM, wrote:
On May 25, 12:33 pm, James wrote:
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Here is a video that might be of some interest to members
of this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZ...eature=related

The interesting thing is that low carb is never worse than
any other diet on weight loss or any measure of risk.

More studies of this kind might sway the medical establishment
and the ADA.


Great find. Best thing I've seen here in a while.
Some of my thoughts.... First, it's important to recognize
that the goal here was not to even try to have strict
adherence to any of the diets. It was oriented to see
what happens with those given a book, class room instruction, 8 weeks
of follow-up, etc, then left alone
to follow the diets for a year. More like what happens
in the real world and a perfectly valid approach.


Even at 8 weeks, while
still being guided, the Atkins group was clearly not doing
Atkins. Carbs accounted for 17% of their caloric intake
at 8 weeks. If we assume a diet of 2000 calories, that
would be 340 cals from carb, or 85g. If they were
doing Atkins by the book, they should be at no more
than 50g of carbs at 8 weeks. So, I'd say from the start
they were doing lower carb, but not specifically
adhering to Atkins.

And at 1 year, their carb intake was double that, so
they were taking in about 170g of carb. Obviously
lower carb than a typical diet, but again, not Atkins.
That's the other thing we already knew, which is that
regardless of diet, most people wind up going back
to their old ways. You can see it in the charts where
weight loss peaked right about at 8 weeks, then
started a slow climb back up for the rest of the year.
That was true for all the diets, though LC was better.
But I have to believe if it were continued for another
year or two the reversion rate would just continue to
increase toward 100%.

That is the really discouraging part. Despite the
health benefits that can be seen, most people just can't
change their ways. It's clear to me that the obesity
epidemic isn't going to be solved until we have some
miracle drug.


A lot of food is consumed out of the home or brought in in the form
of fast food. Carbs are so prevalent in the West that is is nearly
impossible to avoid them. Everything comes with a potato of some kind
and bread or rolls or buns. It takes considerable effort to eat
LC. When I am in a situation when the best thing available is a
hamburger, I buy the largest one and throw away the bun. If LC ever
catches on there will be more choice (fries with that?).


--
-jw
  #13  
Old May 28th, 2012, 02:59 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Which is a cause and which is the effect? *It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory.


Why? I hadn't heard that at all.


The change in hormones is immediate presumably because most of the
stomach is bypassed and is not stimulated by eating.


The not eating part is caused by the band. *It can as easily be caused
by doing the fat fast. *That should trigger the same metabolic changes.


So you say, without any evidence whatever to support it.
Have you not seen the reports and research going on to
understand the mystifying changes scene in most of
these patients within days of the surgery. *Like the
complete reversal of diabetes?


Or the adverse effects:


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.

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


What's "false" about it?

You seemed to have left those adverse effects out.

I think just about anything is worth a try, before considering
bariatric surgery. Even the fat fast (under a doctor's supervision).


But no one was arguing that point.


I never said they were.

It's just my opinion.

Asshole.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #14  
Old May 28th, 2012, 07:02 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On May 27, 9:59*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]





Which is a cause and which is the effect? *It is certain that bariatric
surgery makes total adherence to low carb mandatory.


Why? I hadn't heard that at all.


The change in hormones is immediate presumably because most of the
stomach is bypassed and is not stimulated by eating.


The not eating part is caused by the band. *It can as easily be caused
by doing the fat fast. *That should trigger the same metabolic changes.


So you say, without any evidence whatever to support it.
Have you not seen the reports and research going on to
understand the mystifying changes scene in most of
these patients within days of the surgery. *Like the
complete reversal of diabetes?


Or the adverse effects:


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.
And for another the complete reversal of diabetes occurs
within a couple of days. Now, LC can certainly help
control diabetes. And some diabetics may be able to
use less medications or go off medications after
some period of LC. But I have not heard evidence of
the diabetes being basicly reversed in just a few days.
That fast, instant reversal is what has medical
researchers intrigued for obvious reasons.





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. It's not even LC. So, you can't account for
what is being seen in gastric bypass patients by
claiming that. The specific claim that was made
was:

"It is certain that bariatric surgery makes total adherence
to low carb mandatory. "

That is just BS.



You seemed to have left those adverse effects out.


I was NOT debating the pros or cons of bariatric surgery.
Neither was James who brought it up. So, there was no
need to discuss the adverse effects.
The sole issue was Doug trying to attribute
the mysterious effects seen in these patients to a LC
diet. Which is wrong.





I think just about anything is worth a try, before considering
bariatric surgery. Even the fat fast (under a doctor's supervision).

But no one was arguing that point.


I never said they were.

It's just my opinion.

Asshole.

--



You think you're winning credibility or arguments here by
using vulgarity?
  #15  
Old May 28th, 2012, 07:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

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.

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...tes-will-fail/

"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.

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!"

Because you're a stupid little schmuck.

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.

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.

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.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #16  
Old May 29th, 2012, 02:39 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

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.


The beginning point of the post-bariatric diet is on the order of 1000
calories so roughly similar to the original fat fast experiment in that
sense. It's closer to the 90% protein experimental group than to the
90% fat or 90% carb experimental groups. It does not match any of them.
It is similar in number of calories to all three groups.

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.

But I'll defer to Doug on that.


Feed a patient the post-bariatric diet without the surgery and see. I
suggest it is very likely the results will be close.

Speculation - The stomach produces ghrelin. The surgery reduces the
ghrelin produced by the stomach. Part of obesity is an imbalance in
hormones produced. Perhaps the post-surgery effects can't be reporduced
with diet alone. But I am unaware of a group fed the poost-surgery diet
as a control group.
  #17  
Old May 29th, 2012, 03:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On May 28, 9:39*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:
" wrote:


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.


The beginning point of the post-bariatric diet is on the order of 1000
calories so roughly similar to the original fat fast experiment in that
sense. *It's closer to the 90% protein experimental group than to the
90% fat or 90% carb experimental groups. *It does not match any of them..
*It is similar in number of calories to all three groups.

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.


But I'll defer to Doug on that.


Feed a patient the post-bariatric diet without the surgery and see. *I
suggest it is very likely the results will be close.


There isn't just one post-bariatric diet. In the
first weeks after surgery when these bariatric patients
are on a very calorie restricted liquid diet. Somewhere around
600 calories a day. Yes, that could have an effect
on the disappearance of diabetes in 80% of the patients.
But they have followed patients for a DECADE after
surgery and the diabetes does not return. So they
have returned to a diet that is probably 2500 calories a
day. A reasonable assumption, probably at the lower
end actually. Typically these patients do not achieve
normal weight. They go from morbidly obese to mildly
obese or overweight, so they could easily be eating
more than 2500 calories.


We all know that people are going to return to eating
what they like, within the limits their surgery permits.
And there isn't anything I'm aware of in these patients
long term diets that says it has to be LC.
Given that whatever is ocurring is
still there at 10 years, I don't think the balance of evidence
supports that this reversal in diabetes is due to LC.



Speculation - The stomach produces ghrelin. *The surgery reduces the
ghrelin produced by the stomach. *Part of obesity is an imbalance in
hormones produced. *Perhaps the post-surgery effects can't be reporduced
with diet alone. *But I am unaware of a group fed the poost-surgery diet
as a control group.


They have done experiments on rats with diabetes. Rats
that were normal weight. The diabetes disappeared within
a couple days of the bypass surgery. I didn't look at the actual
study
to see what diets they were fed, the control group, etc. But
one would think that they probably did feed the rats the
same diets.
  #18  
Old May 29th, 2012, 03:37 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

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.
  #19  
Old May 29th, 2012, 07:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
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.


So what?

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.


If it doesn't remain relatively low-carb, they'll likely regain the
weight.

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.


Low-carb explains it.

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.


There are no absolute answers (unless you're an AIDS alarmist!), but
the evidence (not that you would recognize it if you saw it) is piling
up.

[...]
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.


Thank you! I'm told that all the time!

You were pushing your typical reliance on the Medical Establishment,
also typically ignoring all the many adverse side effects of doing so,
and Doug (and I) were offering an alternative approach that appears to
garner similar results - curing diabetes, and losing weight, more or
less naturally, simply by eating correctly.

F*%K the ADA.

HIV doesn't cause AIDS.


Check!

HIV is harmless


Mostly. Check!

HPV isn't a cause of ovarian cancer


What? You're not content in having HPV causing cervical cancer? Now
it causes ovarian cancer too? What doesn't it cause? How about trying
to pin CHD on HPV, too! It's such a powerful virus that it causes
people to lose their freakin' minds, too, apparently.

But, no, HPV doesn't cause ovarian cancer. Check!

No virus can cause cancer


Check! Maybe genital warts. Maybe.

AIDS is the result of poor nutrition, not enough sleep, poor
sanitation


Along with other things. Check!

AIDS is confined to gay men, drug abusers and hemophiliacs


In the U.S. (and Europe), that's pretty much true. Check!

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/ris...realities.html

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


How about Hep C, FeLV, FIV being mostly harmless, too?

Check!

And let's not forget that "prions" are only a figment of someone's
very vivid imagination (Stanley Prusiner), but earned him a Nobel
Prize anyway. Check!

[It won't be long before boxes of Wheaties will contain Nobel Prizes,
too, so that everyone and anyone can have one!]

Because you're a stupid little schmuck.


That should help your reputation here.


People who are too worried about their reputations are the very people
who keep getting us into all these messes.

We need more scientists who don't give a crap about their
"reputations," but worship The Scientific Method.

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?


One reason? Doug's not an asshole!

Second reason? It's already well known that it should only be
undertaken under a doctor's superrvision.

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.


There's nothing mysterious about it!

It's simple biochemistry!

And hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers explain exactly how it
works, going back to Banting. et al.

Read more, write less.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #20  
Old May 29th, 2012, 07:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:16:37 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
We all know that people are going to return to eating
what they like, within the limits their surgery permits.
And there isn't anything I'm aware of in these patients
long term diets that says it has to be LC.
Given that whatever is ocurring is
still there at 10 years, I don't think the balance of evidence
supports that this reversal in diabetes is due to LC.


According to the Mayo Clinic site on post-bariatric surgery:

"Weight gain or failure to lose weight. If you continue to gain weight
or fail to lose weight on the gastric bypass diet, it's possible you
could be eating too many calories. Talk to your doctor or dietitian
about changes you can make to your diet."

That falls into the "No ****, Red Ryder?" category, I think.

So even after the operation, patients still need to learn how to eat
properly. They can't rely on the "mystery" of the operation itself.
Maybe if more time had been invested in that approach from the get-go,
the patient might have been able to avoid the surgery (and all those
adverse side effects) in the first place.


--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frankenfoods are Winning Cubit Low Carbohydrate Diets 10 December 12th, 2007 04:49 AM
Sweetner Court Battle RRzVRR Low Carbohydrate Diets 64 April 15th, 2007 09:20 AM
Battle Of The Bulge: Why Losing Weight Easier Than Keeping It Off jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 January 10th, 2006 08:58 PM
Article; Battle of School Cafeterias Carol Frilegh General Discussion 1 October 8th, 2005 10:22 PM
Personal battle inthe kitchen Qilt Low Carbohydrate Diets 13 November 19th, 2003 06:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.