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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frankenfoods are Winning | Cubit | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | December 12th, 2007 03:49 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 07:58 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 05:10 AM |