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

60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2 Diabetes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 4th, 2008, 11:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Brigid Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

wrote:
On May 3, 5:30 pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:
On May 3, 1:21 pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:
Now, I'm not always a fan of60Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the60Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses60Minutesof saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.
The 'nurse' who writes this blog understands research methodology and
does an excellent job of de-bunking claims of weight-related morbidity.
Poke around her site some more and follow the links to the studies.
Here's another interesting article on Gastric Bypass:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...ally-proof-tha...
Also, can you give me a cite for the study that shows the risk of cancer
decreasing with bypass surgery? I'm interested to see the sample size,
how long subjects were followed, and how these researchers decided they
could determine the causation of cancer to be fatness.
Sorry if you have a problem with me pointing out that the blog is run
by a nurse, but that is apparently her academic credentials related to
the discussion at hand. I didn't do the research for60Minutes. I
don't know what specific study they based the claim on. But a simple
google produced this, which says long term, the risk of dying from
cancer was cut by60% and is consistent with what60Minutesreported:

I detected a disparaging tone in your original post about the legitimacy
of the opinion of a *nurse*.


What I objected to was Hakans statement that the opinion of this nurse
on a blog means that the 60 Minutes Story is untrue.



Knowing a little something about
methodology myself, I find this nurse to be an good resource as she
carefully explains the methods and statistics used in these studies that
the media parade out in order to make us feel bad about ourselves and/or
buy expensive drugs and surgical treatments that may do more harm than
good. I think she performs a useful service as not everyone has taken a
class in research methods or statistical analysis. A nurse with a BSN
would have had at least one such class - and she obviously paid
attention. I just wish she'd read Taubes as I find her insistance that
carbs are harmless to be somewhat uninformed.


What I see is someone who has formed a opinion and is using FUD
tactics to hurl anything at all to try to paint gastric bypass in an
unfavorable light. Take this gem which leads off the blogs criticism
of the Swedish study:

"We’ll begin with one of the most common misconceptions: years of
follow-up. Since this study was examining the long-term effects of
bariatric surgery on mortality, it’s understandable you might think
that the average 10.9 years of follow-up reported meant the patients
were followed for 10.9 years after having surgery. Here is the first
example of not reading the study. The follow-up period — which
actually ranged from 4 to 18 years — began from the “matching date.”
That was the date that the study recruitment campaign ended and the
surgical candidates were chosen and matched with controls. This was
about 1 1/2 years before the surgeries were actually performed. So,
we’re down to just over an average 9 years of post-surgical follow-up.
"

This is the starting point, the best she can come up with to tear into
the Swedish study? Arguing a nit over whether the long term
measurement point is 9 years or 10.5 years? What critical difference
does that make in the grand scheme of things? If you want to start
attacking studies, you can tear any of them apart with such
critcisms. But IMO, it does show how biased she is.

If one wants to start with a critical analysis, why not start with her
own claim that 60 Minutes said gastric bypass cures cancer. That is
an outrageous falsehood. They clearly said studies showed it reduced
rates of cancer, not cured it.

You know what? I didn't see the show so I googled to see if I could find
a transcript. I found this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4023451.shtml

Here's the first paragraph:

(CBS) It's pretty well known to doctors that the most successful
treatment for obesity is surgery, especially the gastric bypass
operation. But here's something the medical world is just realizing:
that the gastric bypass operation has other even more dramatic effects.
It can force type 2 diabetes into almost instant remission and it
appears to reduce the risk of cancer.

This is from the third page:

In addition to the operation reducing hypertension and coronary artery
disease, there appears to be an affect on cancer as well.

"Does being fat give you cancer?" Stahl asks Dr. Eugenia Calle, an
epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society.

"Being overweight or obese increases the likelihood that you'll get
several different types of cancer," Calle says.

Dr. Calle has been studying the link between cancer and obesity.

Asked what kinds of cancer, Calle gives Stahl a long list: "Breast
cancer, colon cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, cancer of the
esophagus, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer."

"I should have said what cancers don't, aren't affected by obesity,"
Stahl remarks.

"There are very few that aren't affected, yes," Calle says.

"Have you been able to calculate how many people die every year of
obesity-related cancers?" Stahl asks.

"We have. And our estimate is that about 100,000 individuals in the
U.S…,every year die of cancer, because of their weight," Calle says.

"So if you lose weight, you're fending off cancer?" Stahl asks.

"Well, that is and has been, up until now, sort of the piece of evidence
that hasn't been in place. People don’t really lose weight in this
country," Calle says. "They lose it and they gain it back."

***so sure, they didn't actually come out and say gastric bypass cures
cancer, however I'm sure many people who watched this didn't make that
distinction. It's very debatable whether cancer is caused by overweight
in any case, even though researchers continually claim it regardless of
what the study numbers show.

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...655367,00.html
"The larger of the two studies — the largest of its kind — led by
researchers at the University of Utah School of Medicine, looked
specifically at gastric bypass surgery, also known as Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass, which accounts for 80% of all bariatric surgeries in
the U.S.

It's interesting to me that when I asked you for a cite for your data
you gave me a link to a press release/story in Time Magazine. Ironically
the very story that the link I gave you above does a good job of
debunking with the actual statistics from the actual study, not what was
presented in a current events magazine.

This would be the *actual* cite:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/8/741

To properly evaluate the claims made by the researchers, you will have
to read beyond the abstract and look at the methods, especially how the
study group was not selected at random and how the 10 years were
measured not from the date of the procedures, but the date of the survey
mail out.


Yeah, here we go again. You asked if 60 Minutes interviewed any long
term gastric bypass patients, as if anecdotal evidence proves much of
anything. Here you have an actual study, and you want to rail against
it over what method is used as the starting point to measure whether
long term is 9 years or 10 years, as if that would make a critical
difference in the outcome. Unless you have evidence that it does,
then it's just attacking the study on any basis because you don't like
the results.

Interesting though that you have the link to the study, while asking
me for it.


Nope, I had no idea which study you were talking about. I found the cite
after following your link and reading the pr article. From there it was
relatively easy to find the actual study.

In the Utah study, researchers compiled data on 15,850 severely obese
people, half of whom had undergone gastric bypass surgery between 1984
and 2002, and half who were from the general population and had had no
surgical intervention for obesity. Overall, researchers found, the
surgery patients were 40% less likely to die from any cause during a
mean 7 years of follow-up, compared with the obese controls. What's
more, the mortality rate attributable to obesity-related disease was
52% lower on the whole in the surgery group: after gastric bypass,
patients were 92% less likely to die from diabetes, 59% less likely to
die from coronary artery disease, and60% less likely to be killed by
cancer."
and this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3196880.shtml

Surprise! it's another press release of the same study.



I think some of the criticisms and questions raised are probably
valid, and others are likely not. 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. 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. This
bypass effect results in remission within days. 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. 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.
One aspect this blog focuses heavily on is the supposedly very
negative longer range effects. The60Minutesstory had a Dr with
4000 patients and 10-15 years worth of experience. I've also seen
other info from actual studies that suggest the long death rate in
gastric bypass patients from all causes is substantially less than
those that do not have the procedure.
You might want to look into that a little deeper. The net is becomming
increasingly crowded with blogs and support groups for people who have
had the surgery long enough for the serious side-effects to develop. Did
60minutesreally talk to long-term bypass patients? Those who are 7-10
years out to see how those people are living now?
60Minutesdid not show interviews with long term patients. They
did, as I pointed out above, interview a doctor with 4000 patients and
10-15 years experience.

Would that doctor perhaps, be wanting to sell his services to the
viewers of this program?


Yes, perhaps. But I could easily dismiss most studies, professional
opinions, etc on a similar basis. If gastric bypass is so damaging
and bad as you seem to believe it is, 60 Minutes could have done a
story on the irresponsible greed of doctors and medical
professionals. That would have been an even more sensational story.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but it's really not fashionable these days
to question the rationale that fat will kill you. Why on earth would the
sponsors pay for a program that bashes a surgery that 'cures' fat people.



I looked at the60Minutesstory as a view into a curious side effect
of gastric bypass that no one expected, which is leading to more
research and COULD lead to treatment or cure for type 2 diabetes.
That could come from gastric bypass itself.. It could also come from
a better understanding of what goes on in the duodenum that causes
bypass to work, which in turn leads to a drug, etc. I guess you
could argue that the story was overly positive on gastric bypass, but
there certainly are studies that support it as a valid procedure for
some patients. And60Minutesclearly stated that patients typically
don't lose all their excess weight, but typically lose about 1/3 and
instead go from morbidly obese to just obese or overweight, etc.
Once again, I'd like a cite, with long-term data.
Try googling. I'm not claiming to be an expert on gastric bypass or
to have all the answers, long term data, etc. If you're so
familiar with the various aspects, pro and con, why do I have to be
the one to find the studies?

Because you're the one who said that you knew of studie(s) showing the
amazing benefits of gastric bypass surgeries.



Look, over the years, I've seen endless posts from many people here
talking about some new study, whether it be about LC, weight loss,
cholesterol, diabetes, etc. And in the majority of cases, all that
is provided is a link to the news story or perhaps an abstract of the
study, at best. I've never seen such hostility or demand for the
whole study, proof etc directed at them. And for good reason. Many
times these studies have been printed in medical journals and unless
you pay for access, you can't get the whole study.

I provided links that give the same sort of summary info for the 2
studies that directly support much of what 60 Minutes reported You
actually have one of the studies and the opening attack against it is
the silly 9 years vs 10.5 years argument. So, what's the point?




In short, you can draw your own conclusions. But I would look at
actual data from many sources before jumping to the conclusion that
the60Minutesstory is untrue because one blog says so.
Good idea. Let us know when you start.
Excuse me? Why the sarcasm?

Because while telling me to look at the actual data to form my own
conclusions, you are linking to ****ing press releases.


And now you interject profanity, which is never a good way to convince
people of your position. Why exactly are you so emotional over
this? I provided links to the news reports, exactly as many others
have done here over the years without being attacked. I've looked at
the nurses blog you provided and IMO it's clear that she has a very
biased approach to looking at this whole issue. Nothing there is even
close to being balanced and objective.


I understand that you think that she's not objective. What if the
studies are flawed? These studies have legitimate flaws that
delegitimize their reported claims. If gastric bypass (or bariatric
surgery, or lap banding) is safe and helpful in the long term than you
wouldn't have to play games with the methods and the reporting to sell
the procedure. How can you report good news if there isn't any.

On the other hand, despite all the time this thread has been going on,
it's quite obvious that you haven't even bothered to find out what 60
Minutes actually reported. If you had, you wouldn't be asking me
about what 60 Minutes did or did not say. If you're interested in
being fair and objective, that would seem to be a good place to start,
rather than demanding I provide full research studies.

As I said in this thread many times, I saw the 60 Minutes Story mostly
as opening a whole new avenue of potential treatments for type 2
diabetes and perhaps more. Researchers have found that bypassing the
duodenum reversed type 2 diabetes ina few days in humans. They
confirmed it with studies in rats. More studies are under way to
find out more about how this works and how it might be used. Exactly
the same process over the years has resulted in major medical
breakthroughs, which is a good thing and has saved lives. Bottom
line, are you against this research? Should this medical curiosity
just be ignored? What exactly do you want?


I want people to have access to information that will help them to make
good health care decisions. I don't think that's a bad thing. I doubt
that you will find unbiased health information from newsshows whose
advertising often comes from the heathcare conglomerates.

As to whether I want research, of course I do, but research is only as
good as the methodology. The criticisms in the pieces I linked to were
valid. You should know from hanging out in this group how often studies
are mis-reported or methodologically unsound. Just because it's been
published in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that all is right
with the paper. Especially currently in the medical journals. Want to
see just how bad it can be? Google 'Enhance Trial'.

The internets are increasingly home to blogs and support groups by and
for people who are past the honeymoon period and are starting to get
very sick, mostly from starvation-related diseases. So great, bariatric
surgery will cure my diabetes, I'll get nesidioblastosis and rotting
teeth instead. Sounds great, sign me up.

If you refuse to look critically at study data with an eye to the
methodology than no-one can help you.

good luck,
brigid
  #32  
Old May 5th, 2008, 03:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

" 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.
  #33  
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:07 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

On May 4, 6:23*pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:
On May 3, 5:30 pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:
On May 3, 1:21 pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:
Now, I'm not always a fan of60Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the60Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. * *Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. * Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses60Minutesof saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. * I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.
The 'nurse' who writes this blog understands research methodology and
does an excellent job of de-bunking claims of weight-related morbidity.
Poke around her site some more and follow the links to the studies.
Here's another interesting article on Gastric Bypass:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...ally-proof-tha....
Also, can you give me a cite for the study that shows the risk of cancer
decreasing with bypass surgery? I'm interested to see the sample size,
how long subjects were followed, and how these researchers decided they
could determine the causation of cancer to be fatness.
Sorry if you have a problem with me pointing out that the blog is run
by a nurse, but that is apparently her academic credentials related to
the discussion at hand. * *I didn't do the research for60Minutes. *I
don't know what specific study they based the claim on. *But a simple
google produced this, which says long term, the risk of dying from
cancer was cut by60% and is consistent with what60Minutesreported:
I detected a disparaging tone in your original post about the legitimacy
of the opinion of a *nurse*.


What I objected to was Hakans statement that the opinion of this nurse
on a blog means that the 60 Minutes Story is untrue.


*Knowing a little something about
methodology myself, I find this nurse to be an good resource as she
carefully explains the methods and statistics used in these studies that
the media parade out in order to make us feel bad about ourselves and/or
buy expensive drugs and surgical treatments that may do more harm than
good. I think she performs a useful service as not everyone has taken a
class in research methods or statistical analysis. A nurse with a BSN
would have had at least one such class - and she obviously paid
attention. I just wish she'd read Taubes as I find her insistance that
carbs are harmless to be somewhat uninformed.


What I see is someone who has formed a opinion and is using FUD
tactics to hurl anything at all to try to paint gastric bypass in an
unfavorable light. * Take this gem which leads off the blogs criticism
of the Swedish study:


"We’ll begin with one of the most common misconceptions: years of
follow-up. Since this study was examining the long-term effects of
bariatric surgery on mortality, it’s understandable you might think
that the average 10.9 years of follow-up reported meant the patients
were followed for 10.9 years after having surgery. Here is the first
example of not reading the study. The follow-up period — which
actually ranged from 4 to 18 years — began from the “matching date.”
That was the date that the study recruitment campaign ended and the
surgical candidates were chosen and matched with controls. This was
about 1 1/2 years before the surgeries were actually performed. So,
we’re down to just over an average 9 years of post-surgical follow-up.
"


This is the starting point, the best she can come up with to tear into
the Swedish study? * Arguing a nit over whether the long term
measurement point is 9 years or 10.5 years? * What critical difference
does that make in the grand scheme of things? * If you want to start
attacking studies, you can tear any of them apart with such
critcisms. * But IMO, it does show how biased she is.


If one wants to start with a critical analysis, why not start with her
own claim that 60 Minutes said gastric bypass cures cancer. * That is
an outrageous falsehood. *They clearly said studies showed it reduced
rates of cancer, not cured it.


You know what? I didn't see the show so I googled to see if I could find
a transcript. I found this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4023451.shtml

Here's the first paragraph:

(CBS) It's pretty well known to doctors that the most successful
treatment for obesity is surgery, especially the gastric bypass
operation. But here's something the medical world is just realizing:
that the gastric bypass operation has other even more dramatic effects.
It can force type 2 diabetes into almost instant remission and it
appears to reduce the risk of cancer.

This is from the third page:

In addition to the operation reducing hypertension and coronary artery
disease, there appears to be an affect on cancer as well.

"Does being fat give you cancer?" Stahl asks Dr. Eugenia Calle, an
epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society.

"Being overweight or obese increases the likelihood that you'll get
several different types of cancer," Calle says.

Dr. Calle has been studying the link between cancer and obesity.

Asked what kinds of cancer, Calle gives Stahl a long list: "Breast
cancer, colon cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, cancer of the
esophagus, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer."

"I should have said what cancers don't, aren't affected by obesity,"
Stahl remarks.

"There are very few that aren't affected, yes," Calle says.

"Have you been able to calculate how many people die every year of
obesity-related cancers?" Stahl asks.

"We have. And our estimate is that about 100,000 individuals in the
U.S…,every year die of cancer, because of their weight," Calle says.

"So if you lose weight, you're fending off cancer?" Stahl asks.

"Well, that is and has been, up until now, sort of the piece of evidence
that hasn't been in place. People don’t really lose weight in this
country," Calle says. "They lose it and they gain it back."

***so sure, they didn't actually come out and say gastric bypass cures
cancer, however I'm sure many people who watched this didn't make that
distinction. It's very debatable whether cancer is caused by overweight
in any case, even though researchers continually claim it regardless of
what the study numbers show.



It's rather bizarre that you think the above supports the outrageous
claim made on your blog reference that said 60 Minutes said GASTRIC
BYPASS CURES CANCER. Everything you've excerpted above is very
clear. 60 Minutes actually stated that gastric bypass and the
resulting weight loss reduces cancer rates, not cures it. And what
they reported is supported by studies.

Still funny how you focus on 60 Minutes, and give free passes to
others who can't get even one of the most basic facts right while
hurling criticism.






  #34  
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:48 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

On May 5, 10:53*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" 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.


How is the diet of a gastric bypass patient more restrictive than
Atkins induction? AFAIK, they are free to eat reasonable amounts of
carbs and aren't even close to induction. They must be eating
plenty of something, because in most cases patients lose about 1/3 of
their weight and while not morbidly obese, remain overweight or obese,
yet apparently the type 2 disappears.




*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.


It would be interesting to hear from the type 2's here as to whether
Atkins induction made their type 2 disappear within days.




*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. *


This curious fact about bypassing the duodenum and the disappearance
of type 2 came apparently came about through clinical observation.
You don't think with all the millions of obese people that doctors
have seen for decades that they would not have noticed his effect due
simply to reducing food intake? I mean you have type 2 patients
that have had all kinds of surgeries, accidents, etc that have been in
hospitals, where they are eating drastically reduced amounts, or not
at all and need to adjust their medication, monitor them, etc. If
the same dramatic complete reversal of type 2 occured due to simply
eating less, it would seem to me that it would have been noticed long
ago.

Now, I'm not saying that isn't possible. I'm just saying I find it
dubious that this is one of the opening lines of attack leveled by
that blog. It doesn't seem likely to me. But even more important,
it would seem to me that it's up to the person trying to refute 60
Minutes to actually find out what the researchers did, what they ruled
in and out, rather than throwing out baseless what if speculation.



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.


Don't you think that would be a good thing for someone to find out,
before they start hurling speculative objections trying to refute 60
Minutes, the doctors, researchers, etc? I would be very surprised
if the study with rats did not have a control group that was fed the
same diet as the rats that had the duodenum bypass. To not do so,
this research would be laughed out of any peer review.
  #35  
Old May 5th, 2008, 05:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

" wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:


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.


How is the diet of a gastric bypass patient more restrictive than
Atkins induction?


Based on this I can't tell if you have no idea what foods
are eaten by folks fresh out of by pass surgery or by
folks fresh on Induction. Given your history of willfully
ignoring parts of Atkins both.

AFAIK, they are free to eat reasonable amounts of
carbs and aren't even close to induction.


No. At-kids are allowed whatever it takes to get through
cravings then use the appetite suppression of ketonuria
to taper down portions - rule 5 of Induction. Bypass
folks start out well under 1000 calories and taper back
up on a time scale of multiple months. They eat both
low carb and low fat.

They must be eating
plenty of something, because in most cases patients lose about 1/3 of
their weight and while not morbidly obese, remain overweight or obese,
yet apparently the type 2 disappears.


To me the mystery of lap band or by pass is how they
avoid starvation mode symptoms like T3 reduction.

This bypass effect results in remission within days.


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


It would be interesting to hear from the type 2's here as to whether
Atkins induction made their type 2 disappear within days.


Absolutely.
  #36  
Old May 5th, 2008, 07:12 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Brigid Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

Doug Freyburger wrote:

To me the mystery of lap band or by pass is how they
avoid starvation mode symptoms like T3 reduction.


I know I said I was done playing in this particular sandbox, but:

Amongst all that stuff I linked to in previous posts are descriptions of
some of the nutritionally-related disorders that affect bariatric
patients. These include beriberi, calcium deficiencies, anemia, and
various pancreatic disorders.

If you're really curious, look at some of the blogs written by bariatric
patients - especially the ones written by patients who are more than
five years out. Warning, it gets depressing really fast.

Couple of links:
http://meltingmama.typepad.com/wls/2...xiest-pos.html

http://gastricbypass.netfirms.com/jib.htm

http://gastricbypass.netfirms.com/

And a Yahoo group that you can subscribe to and read but not post,
unless you are a post-surgical patient:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OSSG-gone_wrong/


Really, not going to post about this anymore

brigid
  #37  
Old May 6th, 2008, 05:47 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

On May 5, 12:57*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:


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.


How is the diet of a gastric bypass patient more restrictive than
Atkins induction?


Based on this I can't tell if you have no idea what foods
are eaten by folks fresh out of by pass surgery or by
folks fresh on Induction. *Given your history of willfully
ignoring parts of Atkins both.


Instead of simply answering the question, you open instead with an
attack on my credibility? A very curious attack, because regular
readers here should know that over the years, I've provided many
excerpts directly from Atkins books and similar references to backup
what I've stated. You, on the other hand, never do, despite being
asked to do so.



AFAIK, they are free to eat reasonable amounts of
carbs and aren't even close to induction.


No. *At-kids are allowed whatever it takes to get through
cravings then use the appetite suppression of ketonuria
to taper down portions - rule 5 of Induction. *Bypass
folks start out well under 1000 calories and taper back
up on a time scale of multiple months. *They eat both
low carb and low fat.



With Atkins you are allowed whatever it takes to get through
cravings? During induction? That's a new take on induction.

There is no question that gastric bypass patients are eating limited
amounts of food. They reduce both sugar and fat. But whether that
translates into it being more restrictive than Atkins induction is
certainly arguable. I took it to mean that it is more restrictive in
the sense that it similar to induction, but even more limited. The
fact that the post-operative diet for 4-6 weeks includes refined
cereal, mashed potato, applesauce, and unsweetened fruit juice means
it isn't anything at all like Atkins induction.

Here's a reference as to what the diet is:
http://www.hopkinsbayview.org/health...stricdiet.html

And please note who provided a reference.

Also take a look at the next stage from that reference, after the 6
weeks, when they expand the list of allowed foods to include rice,
pasta, toast, crackers, etc.

The obvious point being, that this is nothing at all like the Atkins
diet. Yet, these patients have a very high rate of diabetes
remission that starts within days of surgery and continues long term,
when their diet includes more sugar, starch etc. Curiously, these
patients also report a lack of cravings, which if you were following
Atkins and started eating all that, one would think would return.





They must be eating
plenty of something, because in most cases patients lose about 1/3 of
their weight and while not morbidly obese, remain overweight or obese,
yet apparently the type 2 disappears.


To me the mystery of lap band or by pass is how they
avoid starvation mode symptoms like T3 reduction.



You completely avoided the obvious point. Most of these patients go
from morbidly obese to obese or overweight. Therefore, they are
obviously eating a reasonably high amount of food. Which makes
sense, because the stomach slowly expands again, so it eventually
holds more food. It's not the diet of the first week after surgery.
And the list of allowed foods contains rice, bread, crackers, pasta,
fruit juice, etc. Yet, the reversal of diabetes that occurs within
days of the surgery persists. How do you explain that in terms of a
restricted diet or comparing it to Atkins induction? You can't.

And while we're on references, here's another one that answers your
question about rats. Remember how I said it would be extremely
unlikely for the researchers to not have had a control group of rats
that were fed the same diets, as the group of rate that received the
bypass, so the bypass would be the only variable? That's because
unlike some people here, I think most researchers at well known
institutions who publish peer reviewed studies have sufficient
intelligence to do a study that at least covers the obvious basics.

Since you apparently would rather pontificate instead of google, here
once again is the reference to the study:

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Rubino,F

"Ann Surg. 2006 Nov ;244 (5):741-749 17060767 (P,S,E,B,D) Favorite:1
The Mechanism of Diabetes Control After Gastrointestinal Bypass
Surgery Reveals a Role of the Proximal Small Intestine in the
Pathophysiology of Type 2 Diabetes.

METHODS:: Goto-Kakizaki (GK) type 2 diabetic rats underwent duodenal-
jejunal bypass (DJB), a stomach-preserving RYGB that excludes the
proximal intestine, or a gastrojejunostomy (GJ), which creates a
shortcut for ingested nutrients without bypassing any intestine.
Controls were pair-fed (PF) sham-operated and untreated GK rats. Rats
that had undergone GJ were then reoperated to exclude the proximal
intestine; and conversely, duodenal passage was restored in rats that
had undergone DJB


CONCLUSIONS:: This study shows that bypassing a short segment of
proximal intestine directly ameliorates type 2 diabetes, independently
of effects on food intake, body weight, malabsorption, or nutrient
delivery to the hindgut. These findings suggest that a proximal
intestinal bypass could be considered for diabetes treatment and that
potentially undiscovered factors from the proximal bowel might
contribute to the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. "


So, clearly in rats, the effect is independent of food intake,
providing strong evidence that something besides diet or the size of
the stomach is responsible for what is going on. And note that in
this study, only the duodenum was bypassed, not the stomach itself.
Surely there is something very amazing going on in the first few
inches of the small intestine.

Now, what should we do? Join the chorus railing against all gastric
bypasses? Heap more baseless criticism on the research methods,
without even understanding what they did? Or welcome more research
that could benefit diabetics and the obese? And note, I'm not
saying that means surgery is the answer. For example, it could very
well be that it results in discovering the true underlying mechanism
here, which in turn leads to a drugs that could combat diabetes and
obesity.

Finally, here's a fairly balanced article about the whole subject of
type 2 diabetes and gastric bypass from the Washington Post:

Surgery Shows Promise For Treatment of Diabetes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle



This bypass effect results in remission within days.


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


It would be interesting to hear from the type 2's here as to whether
Atkins induction made their type 2 disappear within days.


Absolutely.



I found a small study that addresses that as well. The study put
type 2's on a LC diet and monitored them for 2 weeks. The conclusion
was that they had much improved BG profiles and insulin sensitivity.
But no where does it come close to saying that diabetes went into
remission.

I could post the reference, but maybe you should do some googling
yourself.
  #38  
Old May 6th, 2008, 08:55 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

" wrote:

A very curious attack, because regular
readers here should know that over the years, I've provided many
excerpts directly from Atkins books and similar references to backup
what I've stated. You, on the other hand, never do, despite being
asked to do so.


Incorrect. I've given you numerous citations and quotes.
You responded with disagreement and blindly stuck to
your own simple minded interpretations. As a result I
long ago wrote you off. You get all the citation responses
your prior history justifies. It isn't requests for citations I
ignore - It's your requests I ignore. And until you start
paying attention to folks who disagree with your points
and show that you are able to learn based on evidence
that status will continue.
  #39  
Old May 6th, 2008, 09:56 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2Diabetes

On May 6, 3:55*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:

A very curious attack, because regular
readers here should know that over the years, I've provided many
excerpts directly from Atkins books and similar references to backup
what I've stated. * You, on the other hand, never do, despite being
asked to do so.


Incorrect. *I've given you numerous citations and quotes.


LOL, I'll leave it for others to judge who has frequently cited
Atkins, complete with page, and who just posts and insists that it is
so, without any reference. Your most cherished reference is your
own "internet observations", which you claim to log and spew forth as
fact. Remember when you made up the story that Dr. Agatston, the
creator of the South Beach diet, worked at the Atkins Center and got
the basis for his South Beach diet via that route? Hmmm? Did you
provide a citation for that falsehood? In the course of that thread,
other people had problems with how you frequently state personal
opinion as if it were established fact and can't distinguish between
the two.



You responded with disagreement and blindly stuck to
your own simple minded interpretations.


No, I gave you the Atkins page and excerpts on many occasions. Like
when someone asks if they can stay on induction for longer than 2
weeks and you tell people that induction should only last 2 weeks and
Atkins had a hard check list of conditions that must be met for it to
go longer. That was BS. Or when you claimed Atkins said that
moving past induction to higher carb levels results in faster weight
loss. That was BS as well. On both those, I provided you citations
from Atkins book, complete with pages. You provided zippo, while
continuing to spout those two assertions as if they were Atkins
truths.


*As a result I
long ago wrote you off. *You get all the citation responses
your prior history justifies. *It isn't requests for citations I
ignore - It's your requests I ignore. *And until you start
paying attention to folks who disagree with your points
and show that you are able to learn based on evidence
that status will continue.


In other words, as usual, you have zippo to support your position.
I even gave you the citation for the rat study that you questioned the
existence of, and were obviously too lazy to go find yourself. It
goes a long way to smashing your conjecture that food intake is
responsible for the remission in diabetes. Just as I stated, when we
first got into this, the researchers were not so stupid as to not have
done a valid study, with diet held constant, so as to eliminate it as
a factor. And guess what? The diabetes disappears with the duodenum
bypass and returns when it's restored, with the same diet.

In an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion, I included a
reference to the Washington Post story, that discusses the whole
diabetes gastric bypass issue in what I think is a pretty fair way.

As far as being written off, I take that as good news. I've written
you off as a big blow hard long ago. But I still won't let you own
the newsgroup and spout your nonsense, without it going challenged.
 




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
Gastric bypass. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Low Carbohydrate Diets 39 January 5th, 2007 09:58 PM
Gastric bypass. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Discussion 20 December 21st, 2006 10:52 PM
Gastric Bypass Debbie Weightwatchers 46 August 17th, 2006 04:04 PM
Gastric Bypass Diet Dave LCHF General Discussion 10 July 18th, 2004 03:15 PM
gastric bypass Jamie Johnson General Discussion 2 October 7th, 2003 02:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 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.