Obesity risks higher than thought
in [Low-Carb]
|
From: Dee Flint on 25 Aug 2008 15:23 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6hgesnFljf93U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:6heevbFl12v6U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:6hdnd9Fl19v0U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote >>>> >>>>>>>> What's the rate of regain? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Zero. >>>>> >>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >>>>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. >>>>> >>>>>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating >>>>>> habits. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >>>>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. >>>>> >>>>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating >>>>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity. >>>>> >>>>> Not even possible. >>>>> >>>>> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can >>>>> kill you. >>> >>>> About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS. >>> >>> Then they clearly did get a significant reduction in their weight. >>> >>>> Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the >>>> patient keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight. >>>> Rather modest expectations, don't you think? >>> >>> Irrelevant to that previous data you quoted. >>> >>>> - and a far cry from zero. >>> >>> I didnt say it was zero from the lowest, just that its zero from the >>> weight before the surgery. > >> It is not a successful result if they cannot maintain a healthy weight. > > Depends on how you define success. Even just a significant weight > reduction in > those that are too stupid to be able to get that any other way is useful > progress. > >> That their weight is less than before isn't a very good measure of >> success. > > Wrong. > That is opinion. Yours seems to be that any loss is a success no matter how small and no matter whether they can maintain it. Mine is that success is reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. Given the risks of complications, the standard of success needs to be high to make it worth the risks. We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes success.
From: Ragnar on 25 Aug 2008 16:14 On Aug 25, 2:22 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:54 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Aug 21, 11:03 pm, macken...(a)downunder.com (MacKenzie) wrote: > >>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2.... > > >>>> Obesity risks higher than thought > >>>> Mark Metherell > >>>> August 22, 2008 > > >>>> AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk than > >>>> previously thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, heart > >>>> attack, stroke and osteoarthritis, a new study has found. > > >>>> The reassessment of obesity's impact in Australia found that > >>>> 600,000 more patients are suffering these diseases because of > >>>> obesity than was estimated in 2006. > > >>>> Gary Deed, the president of Diabetes Australia, said yesterday he > >>>> was "alarmed" by the increase and said it highlighted the urgent > >>>> need to implement the counter-measures planned by the Federal > >>>> Government. > > >>>> The consulting firm Access Economics, which prepared the report for > >>>> Diabetes Australia, adjusted its 2006 estimates of obesity's link > >>>> to diseases on the basis of revised methods of estimation by the > >>>> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. > > >>>> As a result of the adjustments, Access estimates that 23.8 per cent > >>>> of type 2 diabetes cases are caused by obesity, more than double > >>>> the 2006 estimate of 10.8 per cent; obesity accounts for 21.8 per > >>>> cent of cardiovascular diseases, up from about 13 per cent; and > >>>> 24.5 per cent of osteoarthritis cases, up from 14 per cent. > > >>>> Dr Deed said he was reassured the Federal Government was responding > >>>> with preventive campaigns but said there was a need for more > >>>> urgency to promote children's activity and healthier food > >>>> promotion. > > >>>> The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today > >>>> staged by the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy > >>>> Barnett. > > >>>> The latest findings were "deeply disturbing", Senator Barnett said. > >>>> "It highlights just how serious this issue is for people with these > >>>> diseases." > > >>>> There have also been rises, albeit lower, in the proportion of > >>>> certain types of cancer, including colorectal, breast, uterine and > >>>> kidney cancers, about 20 per cent of which are attributed to > >>>> obesity, up from about 15 per cent estimated in 2006. > > >>>> There is also good news on the cancer front, with a separate report > >>>> being released today showing significant improvements in survival > >>>> rates in Australia. > > >>>> The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's figures show > >>>> between the mid-1980s and the early 2000s, the relative chances of > >>>> surviving five years after a cancer diagnosis have risen from 41 > >>>> per cent to 58 per cent for men and from 53 per cent to 64 per > >>>> cent for women. > > >>>> The biggest increases in survival were for those aged in their 50s > >>>> and 60s. The best improvements were in prostate, kidney and breast > >>>> cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. > > >>> Does anyone really believe this study isnt based in bias? Even > >>> though it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from > >>> the CDC. Its just propaganda as usual. > >>> Its just one more bullshit governmentally sponsored study > >> No it isnt. > > Yes it is. > > No it isnt. That Diabetes Australia report was NOT govt sponsored. > > >>> that is designed as a way to garner money for someones pet > >>> pork barrel (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative. > >> Wrong again. > > Nope > > Yep. Diabetes Australia has nothing to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative. > Oh by the way, a direct quote from the article reads: "The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today staged by the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett. How convenient the release timing of this study, lol. I suppose you think its just one big coincidence. I used to think Canadians had a lock on naïve stupidity but judging from your denial of the obvious facts, now Im not so sure. Ragnar
From: Rod Speed on 25 Aug 2008 16:23 Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote >>>>>>>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote >>>>>>>>> What's the rate of regain? >>>>>>>> Zero. >>>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>>> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >>>>>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. >>>>>>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating habits. >>>>>> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >>>>>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. >>>>>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating >>>>>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity. >>>>>> Not even possible. >>>>>> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can kill you. >>>>> About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS. >>>> Then they clearly did get a significant reduction in their weight. >>>>> Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the >>>>> patient keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight. >>>>> Rather modest expectations, don't you think? >>>> Irrelevant to that previous data you quoted. >>>>> - and a far cry from zero. >>>> I didnt say it was zero from the lowest, just that its zero from the weight before the surgery. >>> It is not a successful result if they cannot maintain a healthy weight. >> Depends on how you define success. Even just a significant weight reduction in >> those that are too stupid to be able to get that any other way is useful progress. >>> That their weight is less than before isn't a very good measure of success. >> Wrong. > That is opinion. Nope, thats a fact, there has been a significant reduction in their weight prior to the surgery. I didnt even use the word success. > Yours seems to be that any loss is a success no matter how small I didnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like that either. The numbers YOU quoted are nothing like a small loss. > and no matter whether they can maintain it. The numbers YOU quoted show that 70% did maintain a weight loss from pre surgery. > Mine is that success is reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. Irrelevant to whether WLS does achieve a significant weight loss with those too stupid to lose weight any other way. > Given the risks of complications, the standard of success needs to be high to make it worth the risks. Nope, not with those who are too stupid to lose weight without it. > We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes success. I didnt even mention success, YOU did.
From: Dee Flint on 25 Aug 2008 16:33 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6hgilaFlfac0U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote >>>>>>>>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote > >>>>>>>>>> What's the rate of regain? > >>>>>>>>> Zero. > >>>>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>>> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >>>>>>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. > >>>>>>>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating >>>>>>>> habits. > >>>>>>> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >>>>>>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. > >>>>>>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating >>>>>>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity. > >>>>>>> Not even possible. > >>>>>>> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can >>>>>>> kill you. > >>>>>> About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS. > >>>>> Then they clearly did get a significant reduction in their weight. > >>>>>> Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the >>>>>> patient keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight. >>>>>> Rather modest expectations, don't you think? > >>>>> Irrelevant to that previous data you quoted. > >>>>>> - and a far cry from zero. > >>>>> I didnt say it was zero from the lowest, just that its zero from the >>>>> weight before the surgery. > >>>> It is not a successful result if they cannot maintain a healthy weight. > >>> Depends on how you define success. Even just a significant weight >>> reduction in >>> those that are too stupid to be able to get that any other way is useful >>> progress. > >>>> That their weight is less than before isn't a very good measure of >>>> success. > >>> Wrong. > >> That is opinion. > > Nope, thats a fact, there has been a significant reduction in their weight > prior to the surgery. > > I didnt even use the word success. > >> Yours seems to be that any loss is a success no matter how small > > I didnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like that either. > > The numbers YOU quoted are nothing like a small loss. > >> and no matter whether they can maintain it. > > The numbers YOU quoted show that 70% did maintain a weight loss from pre > surgery. > I didn't quote any percentages. You are mixing up my post with another. >> Mine is that success is reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. > > Irrelevant to whether WLS does achieve a significant weight loss with > those too stupid to lose weight any other way. > >> Given the risks of complications, the standard of success needs to be >> high to make it worth the risks. > > Nope, not with those who are too stupid to lose weight without it. > >> We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes success. > > I didnt even mention success, YOU did. > Why bother to do something like this unless there is a standard of success? Whether it should be a high standard or low standard is a matter of personal opinion but there does need to be a standard. The risks are too high to undertake if there is no goal of success.
From: Rod Speed on 25 Aug 2008 16:34
Ragnar <Ragnarsghost(a)hotmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>>> macken...(a)downunder.com (MacKenzie) wrote >>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2... >>>>>> Obesity risks higher than thought >>>>>> Mark Metherell >>>>>> August 22, 2008 >>>>>> AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk >>>>>> than previously thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, >>>>>> heart attack, stroke and osteoarthritis, a new study has found. >>>>>> The reassessment of obesity's impact in Australia found that >>>>>> 600,000 more patients are suffering these diseases because >>>>>> of obesity than was estimated in 2006. >>>>>> Gary Deed, the president of Diabetes Australia, said yesterday he was >>>>>> "alarmed" by the increase and said it highlighted the urgent need to >>>>>> implement the counter-measures planned by the Federal Government. >>>>>> The consulting firm Access Economics, which prepared the report >>>>>> for Diabetes Australia, adjusted its 2006 estimates of obesity's >>>>>> link to diseases on the basis of revised methods of estimation >>>>>> by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. >>>>>> As a result of the adjustments, Access estimates that 23.8 per >>>>>> cent of type 2 diabetes cases are caused by obesity, more than >>>>>> double the 2006 estimate of 10.8 per cent; obesity accounts for >>>>>> 21.8 per cent of cardiovascular diseases, up from about 13 per >>>>>> cent; and 24.5 per cent of osteoarthritis cases, up from 14 per cent. >>>>>> Dr Deed said he was reassured the Federal Government was >>>>>> responding with preventive campaigns but said there was a need >>>>>> for more urgency to promote children's activity and healthier >>>>>> food promotion. >>>>>> The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today staged >>>>>> by the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett. >>>>>> The latest findings were "deeply disturbing", Senator Barnett >>>>>> said. "It highlights just how serious this issue is for people >>>>>> with these diseases." >>>>>> There have also been rises, albeit lower, in the proportion of >>>>>> certain types of cancer, including colorectal, breast, uterine >>>>>> and kidney cancers, about 20 per cent of which are attributed to >>>>>> obesity, up from about 15 per cent estimated in 2006. >>>>>> There is also good news on the cancer front, with a separate >>>>>> report being released today showing significant improvements >>>>>> in survival rates in Australia. >>>>>> The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's figures show >>>>>> between the mid-1980s and the early 2000s, the relative chances >>>>>> of surviving five years after a cancer diagnosis have risen from >>>>>> 41 per cent to 58 per cent for men and from 53 per cent to 64 per >>>>>> cent for women. >>>>>> The biggest increases in survival were for those aged in their >>>>>> 50s and 60s. The best improvements were in prostate, kidney >>>>>> and breast cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. >>>>> Does anyone really believe this study isn�t based in bias? Even >>>>> though it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from >>>>> the CDC. It�s just propaganda as usual. >>>>> It�s just one more bullshit governmentally sponsored study >>>> No it isnt. >>> Yes it is. >> No it isnt. That Diabetes Australia report was NOT govt sponsored. >>>>> that is designed as a way to garner money for someone�s pet >>>>> pork barrel (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative. >>>> Wrong again. >>> Nope >> Yep. Diabetes Australia has nothing to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative. > Oh by the way, a direct quote from the article reads: > "The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today staged > by the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett. Irrelevant to how that report was funded. Any you're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular senator's party isnt even the govt. > How convenient the release timing of this study, lol. Its an obesity forum, fool. Of course that sort of thing is where that sort of report gets aired. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed the significant link between obesity and diabetes. > I suppose you think it�s just one big coincidence. Nope. Its an obesity forum, fool. Of course that sort of thing is where that sort of report gets aired. Nothing to do with your stupid claims about who paid for the report and the even more stupid claim that Diabetes Australia has anything what so ever to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative. |