| Author |
Message |
|
Chuck Forsbe
#1 / 154
|
 Adiposity 101 Quote:
>>The primary author was Wadden, not Stunkard. But Wadden isn't
>>famous, so what's a little fudging among friends???
>Fudging? Wadden is the student most likely. It's not fudging
>unless I said the paper was only by Stunkard, but you are awfully
>touchy, aren't you? How about addressing his points. Because
>it is out of his lab and he's not the sole author, does this
>invalidate it?
Wadden has been publishing papers pushing VLCD and dieting in general since 1983 or earlier. Unless you're Gordon, you'd think he'd have graduated by now. Recognizing his favorable reports on VLCD, Sandoz Nutrition
Company gave Wadden a grant which was used in funding the study
in question. Sandoz, a Swiss pharmaceutical company, produces
the Optifast liquid diet made famous by TV talk-show host Oprah
Winfrey. In a recent FTC action, Optifast agreed to stop making
unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness and safety.
Since Stunkard appears in neither the first nor the last place
in the list of authors, nor in the grant designation, nor as the
the person to address correspondence to, it remains a mystery
just why Gordon felt the need to identify the paper with Stunkard,
instead of Wadden, the obvious PI.
Quote: >>>for such as study, since 30 years ago no one paid much attention >>No one? Really? Many countries with socialized medicine would
>>have the data. Check out the paper by Stark et al in the Jul 4
>Why do you think socialized medicine means better record keeping?
>The charts I saw and kept when I was in Britain were far less
>complete than the ones we keep here.
I was referring to retention of information, not to its completeness. What we need to settle the issue are weight and height readings during the grade school years. Quote: >>>to the phenomena). Lo and behold, Stunkard found that there was
>>>no correlation between the number and depth of cycles and Lean
>>>Body Mass (contrary to what you've been saying), metabolic rate
>>>(contrary to what you've been saying), ability to lose weight
>>>on a new diet, etc. Yes, there was a correlation between BMI
>>>and cycle dieting, but that is what would always be expected,
>>>since thin people don't diet. It certainly doesn't imply that
>>>dieting caused the fatness. All of these women were fat before
>>>they started dieting. There was no evidence that they ruined
>>>their metabolisms by dieting, as you have been saying. This has
>>>been the conclusion of every study I've seen done on humans.
As with so many papers appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the data disclosed in Wadden's paper is frustratingly incomplete. Nonetheless, it appears that the subjects' body fat had tripled over their dieting carrers. In weight loss studies, weight loss is a function of each subject's initial excess weight. In contrast, the high cyclers in the Wadden/Sandoz study lost little more than the low cyclers despite being very much fatter. This failure to attain expected weight loss agrees with the results of the studies mentioned in Adiposity 101. Quote: >>"This design does not allow a definitive interpretation of the >>findings ... It is possible that the adverse effects of weight >>cycling are introduced by a single [or a few!] episode of weight >>loss and regain ... we did not compare weight losses of our >>subjects during two separate bouts of dieting ... Blackburn et >>al did observe a slower rate of weight loss on a second diet" (op. cit.) >A few more snippets out of context don't invalidate the paper.
>I suggest people read it in toto for themselves and see.
Cycles of weight loss and regain may have adverse health effects, as indicated by two recent epidemiological studies. Gordon, is this final warning, which concludes the Wadden paper,
also taken out of context?
Quote: >>>In the Oct 92 issue of the same journal, your theory that the >>>obese violate the laws of physics was also shot down. When >>>both fat and lean volunteers were overfed and their metabolism >>>was studied using whole body calorimetry and their intake and >>>exercise carefully accounted for, all of the weight gain was >>>just as predicted. When they stopped feeding them too much, >>>the weight loss also occurred just as predicted. There were >>>no "magic" malabsorptions or fluctuations in thermogensis >>>except that expected from increased body mass. >> Give or take 9 per cent
>Can you do better? Saying "my theory is still intact,
>the effect is just smaller than their experimental error"
>is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
OK, what's 9 per cent between friends?? Quote: >>What Gordon doesn't mention about this study is much more
>>interesting. Note Gordon's admission that the fat were not
>>overfed before the study.
>Where did I say that? But of course, they weren't overfed.
>They may have been overeating, but they weren't overfed.
There's about as much difference between "overeating" and "overfeeding" as there is between "feeding your face" and "pigging out". They refer to positive energy balance above set point. While this study of overfeeding may model Gordon's weight
history, the numerous studies cited in Adiposity 101 show this
is not an accurate model for most fat people.
Another aspect of this study must have made Gordon feel right at
home. This study had only three fat people in it, because the
researchers couldn't find any more fat people willing to overeat.
We know Gordon likes small sample sizes, but this is a bit much.
The study Gordon cites demonstrates that both thin and
fat people return to their set point weight after pertubations
in energy balance. It does not address the need of fat people
to lower their set point.
Quote: >>>In the same issue, another paper studied 204 obese women and found
>>>that, contrary to your theories, the amount they ate correlated
>>>with their level of obesity, and that the fatter ones ate more
>>The data in that paper show that almost 50 per cent of the moderately
>>overweight in that group at less than the average of the thin ones,
>>as did many of the more obese in that cohort of women.
>Sure there is a bell curve, but the data still shows the strong
>correlation with levels of eating with levels of obesity. The
>average obese ate more that the average thin.
The Lean subjects had a mean total energy of 1654.80 calories, the moderately obese had 1663.59 calories. Unless my calculator is broken, that is about one half per cent difference. Who but Gordon would call that a "strong correlation"? Quote: >>caloric intake and not to its composition. Since fat {*filter*} diet
>>{*filter*}s are virtually unknown outside of Dr. Mitchum's office,
>>the causality of the observed correlation can best be attributed
>>to the known effects of dieting.
>Most of the males in the TRIM project were diet {*filter*}s. I don't
>think you know what you are talking about. Most of the male
>obese patients that I see have never been on a diet.
There he goes again. We were talking about 205 {*filter*} females, no? Since Gordon brought it up, let's see full disclosure of the TRIM data, not unsupported assertions pulled out of thin air. Quote: >>The Wadden paper was already mentioned in Adiposity 101.
>>I don't see any reason to mention the other two.
>No, I'm sure you don't, since they go against your preconceived
>notions. Yearly (almost monthly) the papers continue to accumulate
>showing that the idea that dieting is responsible for obesity is a crock.
I don't seen any point of mentioning the other two unless Gordon makes a big deal misinterpreting them. --
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
|
| Tue, 16 May 1995 03:24:46 GMT |
|
 |
|
Gordon Ban
#2 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>subjects' body fat had tripled over their dieting carrers. In
>weight loss studies, weight loss is a function of each subject's
>initial excess weight. In contrast, the high cyclers in the
Depends on how you run the study. If you run for everyone until they reach plateau, that is true, but if you run for 10 weeks it isn't a very strong function of fat levels. Quote: >>Where did I say that? But of course, they weren't overfed. >>They may have been overeating, but they weren't overfed. >There's about as much difference between "overeating" and "overfeeding"
>as there is between "feeding your face" and "pigging out". They refer
>to positive energy balance above set point.
Overeating can also be defined as eating more than you can burn up at your ideal weight, not your setpoint. In fact, this is probably the consensus opinion, since set point is just a hypothesis, not a proven fact. Quote: >The Lean subjects had a mean total energy of 1654.80 calories,
>the moderately obese had 1663.59 calories. Unless my
>calculator is broken, that is about one half per cent
>difference. Who but Gordon would call that a "strong
>correlation"?
How about the "not so moderately" obese? --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Sat, 20 May 1995 01:24:32 GMT |
|
|
|
Chuck Forsbe
#3 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>>subjects' body fat had tripled over their dieting carrers. In
>>weight loss studies, weight loss is a function of each subject's
>>initial excess weight. In contrast, the high cyclers in the
>Depends on how you run the study. If you run for everyone
>until they reach plateau, that is true, but if you run for
>10 weeks it isn't a very strong function of fat levels.
At 19 weeks, with more than half their excess fat remaining, the high cyclers reached a plateau on 1000 calories/day. The plateau lasted at least 7 weeks, to the end of the study. Quote: >>>Where did I say that? But of course, they weren't overfed. >>>They may have been overeating, but they weren't overfed. >>There's about as much difference between "overeating" and "overfeeding"
>>as there is between "feeding your face" and "pigging out". They refer
>>to positive energy balance above set point.
>Overeating can also be defined as eating more than you can burn
>up at your ideal weight, not your setpoint. In fact, this
>is probably the consensus opinion, since set point is
>just a hypothesis, not a proven fact.
Since he wrote it much better than I can, allow me to quote from the Harvard Medical School Health Letter: A recent, and useful, editorial on the complications of
very-low-calorie diets begins with the statement, "Once we
attain our {*filter*} size, usually by age 18 to 20, chronic
overeating with a positive caloric balance results in
obesity."[24] Sentences of this type permeate the literature on
obesity. They have, unfortunately, one serious flaw. They do
not mean anything. No plausible definition of the term
OVEREATING is independent of the observation that the person or
animal in question is overweight. If eating behavior did not
produce deposits of body fat, we could not call it overeating.
Thus, to say that people get fat because they overeat is no
different from saying that the sun comes up because it is
morning. The assertion is, in its way, true, and it relates to
a physical reality, but it is empty of content because it simply
restates the definition of terms.
The first law of thermodynamics, by the way, is irrelevant to
this discussion, although it is often brought in. The Law
constrains the equations that can be written to describe energy
flow, but it does not explain how or why a body allocates its
available energy to useful work, metabolic heat, or storage as
fat. Indeed, the second law, which is sometimes cited by people
who confuse it with the first, is probably more germane. The
second law points out that real systems have rather wide
latitude in the efficiency with which they convert incoming
energy to mechanical work or heat. The efficiency of a system,
or the way it allocates available energy, cannot be predicted a
priori, but as a matter of observation it is always less than
100 percent.
These points are not logic-chopping. Such sentences as the one
I just quoted can be decomposed into two propositions: positive
caloric balance is equivalent to obesity (a tautology) and
animals are heterotrophic, which is a meaningful, but not a
terribly specific or helpful point to make. To leap from the
true and self-evident, but vacant, identification of overeating
with obesity to the conclusion that control of cooking.net">food intake is
the sole or most important modality for reversing the condition
is as unwarranted as inferring that we could make the sun rise
by taking suitable measures to make it be morning. Yet this is
precisely the intellectual maneuver that launches the two
fundamental papers on behavior modification as a treatment for
obesity.
Ferster began his theoretical case for behavior therapy with the
proposition, "excessive eating results in increased body fat and
this is aversive to the individual. The problem is therefore to
gain control of the factors which determine how often and how
much one eats."[2] Keeping this tack, Stuart opened his seminal
report of a treatment success with the following statement
(citing the U.S. Public Health Service as its source): "Only
two common characteristics have been observed in obese persons:
a tendency to overeat and a tendency to underexercise."[3] Of
course. The conclusion is foregone in the prefixes; if there is
fat on a body, ipso facto it has overeaten, underexercised, or
undermetabolized. Indeed, all three are automatically true, and
the choice between them is arbitrary. It thus becomes highly
unclear what kind of observation could have been made that would
incriminate any one or two of these factors and not the third.
Field studies on energy intake and expenditure of obese people
have yielded, at best, equivocal results from attempts to
measure differences between the caloric intake of fat and lean
people,[25-27] though output studies suggest that obese {*filter*}s,
but perhaps not children, expend less energy than do their lean
counterparts.[27,28]
To a considerable degree, even those laudable efforts to obtain
firm data on the input/output characteristics of fat people are
beside the point, because a positive finding with respect to any
one of them begs the crucial question: Why is energy balance
achieved at a particular level of fat storage and not some
other? If one person is shown to exercise less than the other,
and to be fatter, lack of exercise does not directly explain the
obesity, because intake could have been adjusted to compensate
for reduced output. Why wasn't it?
The common response to this dilemma is to ignore it. Overeating
is accepted as the cause of overweight, and overeating is
explained by characterizing cooking.net">food as an attractive nuisance that
induces people to consume calories that they do not, in some
mystical sense, really want. This was the essence of Ferster's
argument, and it is uttered all the time by people who are in
the business of treating obesity. But inasmuch as the
consequence (obesity) is used as its own explanation, this line
of reasoning leads nowhere. I harp on this point for three
reasons. The kind of thinking I am describing has been
scientifically unproductive; it has yielded little discernible
progress in the treatment of obesity; and it forms the basis for
instruction that is given to patients in behavi{*filter*}weight-loss
programs. There is, thus, not only an intellectual, but an
ethical problem pervading dietary treatments of obesity.
Quote: >>The Lean subjects had a mean total energy of 1654.80 calories, >>the moderately obese had 1663.59 calories. Unless my >>calculator is broken, that is about one half per cent >>difference. Who but Gordon would call that a "strong >>correlation"? >How about the "not so moderately" obese?
Most of them were at first only moderately obese, at a time before the commencement of their dieting carrers that ramped up the number of fat cells. To quote from the study:
"when energy consumption was expressed per kilogram body weight,
the association between body-fat percentage and energy intake
was reversed, and when energy intake was expressed per kilogram
lean body mass, there was no relation."
The problem is that there is no agreement on which measure to use;
indeed there is no agreement on how to measure lean body mass.
Question: what are the metabolic effects of removing a 130 pound
"benign tumor" from a human being?
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
|
| Sat, 20 May 1995 19:12:06 GMT |
|
|
|
sine nomi
#4 / 154
|
Adiposity 101
: [quoting gordon banks]
: >Sure there is a bell curve, but the data still shows the strong
: >correlation with levels of eating with levels of obesity. The
: >average obese ate more that the average thin.
:
: The Lean subjects had a mean total energy of 1654.80 calories,
: the moderately obese had 1663.59 calories. Unless my
: calculator is broken, that is about one half per cent
: difference. Who but Gordon would call that a "strong
: correlation"?
uh, i don't wanna get into the middle of this (and given the newsfeed
lag here, someone may have already pointed this out without me seeing
it) but you can't tell anything about correlations by comparing means.
that's just insane. correlation calculations are used to determine
whether two factors (eg, body weight and caloric intake) are related
in a systematic fashion. differences between means are used in several
different statistical tests to determine whether there's a significant
difference between two groups (eg, thin people and fat people) with
regard to a factor such as caloric intake.
to make statements about correlations on the basis of means isn't like
comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apple juice and
oatmeal. it's absurd.
it's also foolhardy at best to attempt to eyeball the significance of
a difference. there are many cases in which a 1.5 percent difference
in means is highly statistically significant.
finally, i think you misread gordon. it seemed to me he was presenting
two separate pieces of evidence for his claim, not one.
--
sine nomine | deb martinson
what's red and invisible?
no tomatoes.
|
| Mon, 22 May 1995 16:11:56 GMT |
|
|
|
Chuck Forsbe
#5 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>: [quoting gordon banks]
>: >Sure there is a bell curve, but the data still shows the strong
>: >correlation with levels of eating with levels of obesity. The
>: >average obese ate more that the average thin.
>:
>: The Lean subjects had a mean total energy of 1654.80 calories,
>: the moderately obese had 1663.59 calories. Unless my
>: calculator is broken, that is about one half per cent
>: difference. Who but Gordon would call that a "strong
>: correlation"?
>uh, i don't wanna get into the middle of this (and given the newsfeed
>lag here, someone may have already pointed this out without me seeing
>it) but you can't tell anything about correlations by comparing means.
There are a number of definitions for "correlation" besides the correlation coefficient taught in first year stix courses. Unless you see a number between 0 and 1 it's a fair bet that the writer had one of the "other" definitions in mind. "Association" might be a better word but it has too many consonants... In the present study, the difference in intake between the 106 moderately
obese subjects energy intake (1663.59 calories) and that of the 74 lean
subjects (1654.80 calories) is 8.79 calories. Given the modest sample
size and the awesome standard deviation of 784.6 I trust the reader will
get a laugh, or at least a chuckle, from the paper's presentation of data
to six significant digits.
This squabbling over figures goes to the deeper issue that separates diet
evangelists from the current thinking of cutting edge obesity researchers:
Is obesity caused by a character imperfection, or by abnormal partitioning of
dietary nutrients between body function, lean and adipose tissue.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
|
| Tue, 23 May 1995 06:20:11 GMT |
|
|
|
Steve Dy
#6 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>This squabbling over figures goes to the deeper issue that separates diet
>evangelists from the current thinking of cutting edge obesity researchers:
>Is obesity caused by a character imperfection, or by abnormal partitioning of
>dietary nutrients between body function, lean and adipose tissue.
YOUR character imperfection is that you insist upon describing any research which doesn't dismiss eating behavior and energy expenditure as irrelevant factors in obesity as tantamount to claiming that obese individuals have a character imperfection, when that's not necessarily the case at all. It's a cartoon of obesity research (that is, the stuff you don't care to quote.) And this is precisely why you are not taken seriously. --
Steve Dyer
|
| Tue, 23 May 1995 11:44:12 GMT |
|
|
|
Beth Maz
#7 / 154
|
Adiposity 101
Quote: >This squabbling over figures goes to the deeper issue that separates diet
>evangelists from the current thinking of cutting edge obesity researchers:
>Is obesity caused by a character imperfection, or by abnormal partitioning of
>dietary nutrients between body function, lean and adipose tissue.
For a person who has collected a few megabytes on obesity research, this question seems simplistic, doesn't it? Clearly the answer to your question is "yes." For some morbidly obese, overweight is caused by substantial overeating. When I hit my peak, I was probably eating double to triple your study's mean of ~1600 calories on a daily basis. Sometimes this overeating is caused by a "character imperfection." Is all obesity due to this? No, but if you are going to imply that "all obesity" is caused by one factor ("abnormal partitioning of dietary nutrients") then I say you are just as misguided as the diet evangelists. Beth Mazur "...life is more than a vision. The sweetest
...!uunet!inmet!mazur -- The Indigo Girls
|
| Tue, 23 May 1995 23:34:24 GMT |
|
|
|
Chuck Forsbe
#8 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>>This squabbling over figures goes to the deeper issue that separates diet >>evangelists from the current thinking of cutting edge obesity researchers: >>Is obesity caused by a character imperfection, or by abnormal partitioning of >>dietary nutrients between body function, lean and adipose tissue. >YOUR character imperfection is that you insist upon describing any research
>which doesn't dismiss eating behavior and energy expenditure as irrelevant
>factors in obesity as tantamount to claiming that obese individuals have a
>character imperfection, when that's not necessarily the case at all. It's
>a cartoon of obesity research (that is, the stuff you don't care to quote.)
>And this is precisely why you are not taken seriously.
>--
>Steve Dyer
The current Adiposity 101 cites almost 20 papers that conclude the obese generally didn't get that way by feeding their faces. Many report the obese eating significantly less. In rebuttal Gordon cites one paper that shows moderately obese subjects eating one half per cent more caloric energy than the lean subjects. That difference, small as it is, is well within the study's margin of error. Of course diet and energy expenditure are relevant to changes in
many tissues and organs. This applies to cancers as well as
adipose tissue. Dietary manipulatons have not been very
successful in the long term control of obesity; the 95% failure
rate approaches that of laetrile, and I see no indication that
another 50 years of tinkering will improve the success rate of
either.
In either case it is high time to move on to something else.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
|
| Wed, 24 May 1995 08:32:36 GMT |
|
|
|
Chuck Forsbe
#9 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>>This squabbling over figures goes to the deeper issue that separates diet >>evangelists from the current thinking of cutting edge obesity researchers: >>Is obesity caused by a character imperfection, or by abnormal partitioning of >>dietary nutrients between body function, lean and adipose tissue. >For a person who has collected a few megabytes on obesity research, this
>question seems simplistic, doesn't it? Clearly the answer to your
>question is "yes." For some morbidly obese, overweight is caused by
>substantial overeating. When I hit my peak, I was probably eating double
>to triple your study's mean of ~1600 calories on a daily basis. Sometimes
>this overeating is caused by a "character imperfection." Is all obesity due
>to this? No, but if you are going to imply that "all obesity" is caused
>by one factor ("abnormal partitioning of dietary nutrients") then I say
>you are just as misguided as the diet evangelists.
Adiposity 101 does not claim that all obesity is caused by one factor. To quote: Research over the last decade has shown that most fat
people did not get fat because they ate too much, ate
the wrong things, or exercised too little. Rather, they
became fat because their bodies put too great a fraction
of their cooking.net">food energy into fat.
Note the adjective "most". Adiposity 101 contains many such
qualifiers. I consider the "Adispoity 101" followup articles
to implicitly reference the Adiposity 101 article that started
the thread, qualifiers included.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
|
| Wed, 24 May 1995 19:40:54 GMT |
|
|
|
Beth Maz
#10 / 154
|
Adiposity 101
Quote: >Of course diet and energy expenditure are relevant to changes in
>many tissues and organs. This applies to cancers as well as
>adipose tissue. Dietary manipulatons have not been very
>successful in the long term control of obesity; the 95% failure
>rate approaches that of laetrile, and I see no indication that
>another 50 years of tinkering will improve the success rate of either.
It is interesting that you mention cancer. I think obesity is similar to cancer in that it is a term that groups like, but different, disorders. And as with cancer, it seems obvious that there will be no *one* solution for obesity. However, I suspect that for a large percentage of obese patients, dietary manipulations *will* have a place in a successful weight management program. Your 95% failure rate is for patients who have *regained* lost weight, not failed to lose it. Therefore, diets will probably eventually be supplemented with some other strategy. Beth Mazur "...life is more than a vision. The sweetest
...!uunet!inmet!mazur -- The Indigo Girls
|
| Thu, 25 May 1995 00:10:57 GMT |
|
|
|
Chuck Forsbe
#11 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>>Of course diet and energy expenditure are relevant to changes in >>many tissues and organs. This applies to cancers as well as >>adipose tissue. Dietary manipulations have not been very >>successful in the long term control of obesity; the 95% failure >>rate approaches that of laetrile, and I see no indication that >>another 50 years of tinkering will improve the success rate of either. >It is interesting that you mention cancer. I think obesity is similar
>to cancer in that it is a term that groups like, but different, disorders.
>And as with cancer, it seems obvious that there will be no *one* solution
>for obesity. However, I suspect that for a large percentage of obese
>patients, dietary manipulations *will* have a place in a successful
>weight management program. Your 95% failure rate is for patients who
>have *regained* lost weight, not failed to lose it. Therefore, diets
>will probably eventually be supplemented with some other strategy.
A paper on just such a treatment appeared in the 1992 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 195S. Patients who had failed to lose or maintain weight loss were
placed on VLCD for 8 weeks. At that point they were double
blind randomized on dexfenfluramine or placebo.
Interestingly, the dexfenfluramine and placebo groups both
continued to lose weight for the next 18 weeks on maintenance
diet. This seems to match the brief "happy time" experienced by
dieters before LPL levels rise (see Adiposity 101, Chapter 6.5).
After the 18 week "happy" time, the placebo group started
regaining weight on the maintenance diet, and would have
regained all their weight by the end of the year if they had not
been offered dexfenfluramine.
The dexfenfluramine group continued to lose weight. As confirmed
in other papers, dexfenfluramine worked to normalize weight set
point in the obese, something no diet has ever been shown to do.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
|
| Thu, 25 May 1995 17:33:40 GMT |
|
|
|
Gordon Ban
#12 / 154
|
Adiposity 101 Quote:
>This squabbling over figures goes to the deeper issue that separates diet
>evangelists from the current thinking of cutting edge obesity researchers:
>Is obesity caused by a character imperfection, or by abnormal partitioning of
>dietary nutrients between body function, lean and adipose tissue.
Chuck, get real! I don't know *any* obesity researcher who thinks it is caused by a character imperfection. That went out many years ago. Character imperfection is not the alternative to accepting your theories that physics doesn't apply to the obese. --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Mon, 29 May 1995 07:12:34 GMT |
|
| |
|
