Weight-Loss Surgery May Be Beneficial for Diabetes

terryc wrote:
Wade wrote:

One study of 177 patients found that among Type 2 diabetes patients who
had been very obese, 57 percent remained free of the disease more than
eight years after gastric bypass surgery.

How many died?

That was answered by dooberheim. Thanks!

Lol, claims to have cured T2?

I offer two very different definitions of "cure" -

1) You no longer have symptoms even when you stop taking your
medications. The symptoms were caused by taking a poison and
the underlying damage was not great enough to cause symptoms
after you stop taking the poison. An implicit part of this definition
is that high carb eating plans are poison. So you can never return
to any high carb eating plan.

2) The underlying damage has been reversed, so if the damage was
caused by something other than eating too many carbs for too long
(tremendous variation depending on personal suseptability so even
that is very hard to conclude) then you can resume eating high carb
eating plans without return of symptoms.

Calling high carb eating plans poison is true, but it misses a lot
of other causes for diabetes so it's too simple minded for many
cases.

I figure the lap band results are based on my definition number 1
including its implication that high carb eating plans are poison.
It's
a definition that's pointless to folks with type 1 or caused by
anything other than decades of high carb eating, but I think lots of
folks getting lap band and who showed symptoms got their
symptoms from decades of high carb eating. It's the sort of result
that's tuned to its set of data so it doesn't help diabetics with
greater damage or who got it from other causes. It's not a result
to be over-read which is what terryc seems to be doing.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:50:35 -0700, Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's the sort of result that's tuned to its set of
data so it doesn't help diabetics with greater damage or who got it from
other causes. It's not a result to be over-read which is what terryc
seems to be doing.

Does it kill more people than it cures? A heck of a lot of "diabetic
cures/treatments" have turned out to do just that.

Never loose fact that the underlying function of a lot of "treatments"
are about making money for the inventor/discoverer/employer.


--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
terryc wrote:
Wade wrote:

One study of 177 patients found that among Type 2 diabetes patients who
had been very obese, 57 percent remained free of the disease more than
eight years after gastric bypass surgery.

How many died?

That was answered by dooberheim. Thanks!

Lol, claims to have cured T2?

I offer two very different definitions of "cure" -

1) You no longer have symptoms even when you stop taking your
medications. The symptoms were caused by taking a poison and
the underlying damage was not great enough to cause symptoms
after you stop taking the poison. An implicit part of this definition
is that high carb eating plans are poison. So you can never return
to any high carb eating plan.

2) The underlying damage has been reversed, so if the damage was
caused by something other than eating too many carbs for too long
(tremendous variation depending on personal suseptability so even
that is very hard to conclude) then you can resume eating high carb
eating plans without return of symptoms.

Calling high carb eating plans poison is true, but it misses a lot
of other causes for diabetes so it's too simple minded for many
cases.

I figure the lap band results are based on my definition number 1
including its implication that high carb eating plans are poison.

Bariatric surgery patients (including lap-banding) are not
subsequently placed on a low-carb diet so that there is no implication
from these studies that high-carb eating plans are poison.

What does happen universally is a dramatic decrease in the amount that
is eaten.

Therefore, it remains wise to simply eat less, down to the right
amount (32 oz per day), in order to lose the VAT thereby curing the
insulin resistance (IR/MetS) and possibly also receive a cure for
type-2 diabetes:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...d4e30704307e7?

Marana tha

Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopas and Simon ...
.... ----------------- be hungry ! ! !"

"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...c93540862751c?

What are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...b41e6999de315?

Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...81ab7d7ce78de?

terryc wrote:

Does it kill more people than it cures? A heck of a lot of "diabetic
cures/treatments" have turned out to do just that.

If you define the word "cure" strictly enough you can get to
the point that using Kleenex for the sniffles kills more than
it cures. If you define the word "cure" broadly enough that
any reduction in symptoms counts then even the riskiest
surgeries can cure more than they kill. Since I don't know
where you are in that spectrum I can't address the question
any better than dooberheim did so I'll repeat the data -

Typical 30 day mortality rates for lap band surgery varies from 0.1
to
2% depending on the study. An additional couple percent of patients
die within a year. Factors are the experience of the surgeon, the BMI
of the patient, and other existing disease. Considering that
patients
that undergo this surgery may already have significant morbidities
from their condition, that's not too bad. It's comparable to a lot
of
other major surgeries.

If "a couple percent of patients die within a year" without the
surgery then yes the surgery does cure more than it kills.

Never loose fact that the underlying function of a lot of "treatments"
are about making money for the inventor/discoverer/employer.

You use the word "about" in a very biased way. Vaccines that
prevent viral diseases are also "about" profit for the manufacturer.
Do you then refuse vaccination for thyphus or whatever before
international travel because you'd rather risk the disease than
grant profit to the manufacturer?

While profit is involved, isn't it really "about" the results and the
risk/reward statistics?

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:14:52 -0700, Doug Freyburger wrote:

so I'll repeat the data -

Yawn, so you just a gabber fest.


Typical 30 day mortality rates for lap band surgery varies from 0.1 to
2% depending on the study.

Reminds me of the stats for an angiogram, basically 1 in 100 (1%) chance
that you would die from a stroke or a heart attack whilst undergoing it,
but each was expressed as 5 in 1,000.


--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:23:01 -0400, MÃ*ck©® wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

terryc wrote:

Does it kill more people than it cures? A heck of a lot of "diabetic
cures/treatments" have turned out to do just that.

If you define the word "cure" strictly enough you can get to the point
that using Kleenex for the sniffles kills more than it cures. If you
define the word "cure" broadly enough that any reduction in symptoms
counts then even the riskiest surgeries can cure more than they kill.
Since I don't know where you are in that spectrum I can't address the
question any better than dooberheim did so I'll repeat the data -

Typical 30 day mortality rates for lap band surgery varies from 0.1 to
2% depending on the study. An additional couple percent of patients die
within a year. Factors are the experience of the surgeon, the BMI of the
patient, and other existing disease. Considering that patients
that undergo this surgery may already have significant morbidities from
their condition, that's not too bad. It's comparable to a lot of
other major surgeries.

If "a couple percent of patients die within a year" without the surgery
then yes the surgery does cure more than it kills.


It doesn't cure diabetes. It only allows a morbidly obese individual
who follows the post procedure dietary guidelines to become a "managed"
diabetic. If they fail to follow the dietary restrictions placed on
them they will lose control of their blood sugars again.
They are still diabetic.

Which begs the question that would they have achieved the same result if
they had adapted the post procedure dietary in any case?




--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

Màck©® wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Doug Freyburger
wrote:


terryc wrote:

Does it kill more people than it cures? A heck of a lot of "diabetic
cures/treatments" have turned out to do just that.

If you define the word "cure" strictly enough you can get to
the point that using Kleenex for the sniffles kills more than
it cures. If you define the word "cure" broadly enough that
any reduction in symptoms counts then even the riskiest
surgeries can cure more than they kill. Since I don't know
where you are in that spectrum I can't address the question
any better than dooberheim did so I'll repeat the data -

Typical 30 day mortality rates for lap band surgery varies from 0.1
to
2% depending on the study. An additional couple percent of patients
die within a year. Factors are the experience of the surgeon, the BMI
of the patient, and other existing disease. Considering that
patients
that undergo this surgery may already have significant morbidities

from their condition, that's not too bad. It's comparable to a lot

of
other major surgeries.

If "a couple percent of patients die within a year" without the
surgery then yes the surgery does cure more than it kills.



It doesn't cure diabetes. It only allows a morbidly obese individual
who follows the post procedure dietary guidelines to become a
"managed" diabetic. If they fail to follow the dietary restrictions
placed on them they will lose control of their blood sugars again.

They are still diabetic.

My husband had weight loss surgery in 2002 and he has been free of
diabetes since then. He eats whatever he wants and he is doing fine. I
am not saying everyone should have surgery and I am not saying that
surgery is the way to go, I am just telling you what happened to him.


Becca

Billy wrote:
*Susan wrote:

It might not be a bad idea to get a baseline bone density test; labs
aren't going to catch osteoporosis that recent research indicates could
follow.

Why osteoporosis, when he is taking calcium and presumably "D" in his
vitamins?

The reason is in a part of the thread that got trimmed out:

My husband had weight loss surgery in 2002 and he has been free of
diabetes since then. He eats whatever he wants and he is doing
fine. I am not saying everyone should have surgery and I am not
saying that surgery is the way to go, I am just telling you what
happened to him.

After weight loss surgery every type of deficiency related problem
needs to be considered and the common ones tested for.

In article ,
terryc wrote:

Which begs the question that would they have achieved the same result if
they had adapted the post procedure dietary in any case?

One the whole I'd rather eat tapeworm eggs, rather than go thru the
procedure. And there are many, many plans I would rather embrace.

In article ,
Màck©® wrote:

Research needs to be done on why people fail to maintain post weight
loss surgery "dietary requirements" for ANY weight loss surgery. Then
they need to find out how to help those people who are in the failure
group to change and succeed then apply that to people BEFORE the
surgery is actually their only option.

But where's the wisdom in that?

You mean the profit?