Weight Loss Thread

[txgolfjunkie]

16 hours ago, Pug said:

I knew someone would have to ask but didn’t have the references at my fingertips when I posted this comment, for which I apologize. Although there are other references on this topic, see: Fildes A, et al. Probability of an obese person attaining normal body weight: cohort study using electronic health records. Am J Public Health. 2015; 105(9) e54-e59.

I would also refer anyone interested to the most “ambitious, important nutrition study ever done”, namely The Women’s Health Initiative which examines a number of health issues and generated a variety of reports on specific topics. This randomized trial involved almost 50,000 women and one of the subjects evaluated was the low fat, low calorie approach with a 10% increase in exercise to generate weight loss. The trial extended over a 7 year period. The protocol predicted a 32 pound per year weight loss. Although there was very good compliance with the protocol which predicted the results at the end of the seven year period were described as crushing. The protocol lead to not a single pound of weight loss. Not. One. Pound. This completely obliterates the calories in vs. calories out that we all thought was correct that has been advocated for the last 50 plus years. But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself: Howard BV, et al. Low-fat dietary and weight change over 7 years: the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. JAMA. 2006 Jan 4; 295(1): 39-49. 
 

So that’s some of the science on this topic, as opposed to just being my opinion. With respect to your comment that it defies physics, you’re right, it does. That’s because it’s not physics. The cause of weight gain is hormonal imbalance. As for a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, want to bet? A calorie is a measure taken from physics: the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1* Celsius. There is no direct connection to hormones and the complex processes of digestion. As you can see, the calorie definition makes no mention of food. The use of references to calories has become a convenient and unfortunately misleading assumptions. As I said, the body does not have “calorie receptors”.

The calories in vs calories out (CICO) model is also called the kitchen sink model. However the analogy is false since storage of the products from eating is not a one compartment analogy, like a sink.  It’s not like taking food in and out of a fridge. The surplus we eat gets stored as fat in a freezer in the basement for consumption once the fridge is empty. Fat storage and consumption works through a different process than that involved with the use of blood sugar. You can’t get to the fat in the freezer until you use what is in the fridge first. This is a hormonal, not a physics issue.
 

Please provide the research that describes, “the laws of physics in the human body” and how they relate to the bodies complex hormone processes. I look forward to some interesting reading on this subject. 

Cheers

Good on you for citing studies. Very few folks do that these days and with the infinite amount of 'nutrition experts' on social media, very few cite studies to push their methodology. In fact, I would encourage you to question everyone you get information from. Do they back up their claims with actual studies? Do the studies include a large number of participants and what is the adherence rate? What other factors are they taking into effect other than 'oh we just gave them a low carb diet and let's see what happens' because there are hundreds of variables a test subject can change to get good/bad results. 

So let's break down this response...

The Fildes study, from what I'm reading, looks at the probability of an obese person obtaining a normal weight. While weight loss is getting overly complicated thanks to social media, one aspect that's not being assessed enough according to some nutrition experts I follow is the psychological side of weight loss. What are the triggers for someone to eat in excess? What environmental factors attribute to an excess in eating? What stress levels and other personal decisions are being made that lead to weight loss? Much like golf, it's more between the ears than anything else. Yes, it is discouraging to read, but at the same time, I'm considered overweight by BMI standards. BMI is too much of a broad stroke and doesn't account for body type. According to the BMI charts, Lebron James is overweight and JJ Watt is obese. Looking at hospital charts and tracking it solely on weight and height as the basis of the study leaves a lot of questions to be answered. 

The WHI study was based on post-menopausal women...ages 50-79. Do you know what happens to a woman's body/hormones pre and post menopause? It's a significant change to say the least. Weight loss in post-menopausal women is extremely difficult. To test post and apply it to pre menopause women is a true WTF moment. Geriatric dietitians actually will recommend a little more weight on the bones as you get older to help protect against falling injuries. Obviously they will promote a healthy weight but it's better to be a little heavier than skinny as you get into your senior years. I don't know why that's brought up in your response, but whoever is using this as a source to rebut CICO is leaving out critical components of the study. 

CICO is about energy balance. To lose fat, you need to be in a caloric deficit. If you gain fat, by definition, you are not in a caloric deficit. Maybe you gained fat because your metabolic rate is outside the average. Maybe you gained fat because you didn't track your calories accurately or underestimated your energy expenditure. Maybe you lost fat because you like ate foods that were less processed with more protein and fiber, all of which are factors that can increase energy expenditure. Different food choices affect the calories out portion of CICO. And as far as hormones go, I encourage you to go get tested. And then what happens if your hormones are fine? What's the excuse? I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but if people clamor about hormones go get tested and see that everything is normal, then what? I get the push for hormones for weight management but once it's fixed, it's CICO. My wife has hypothyroidism and takes medication for it daily. Before her diagnosis, she ate in a caloric deficit (albeit a small deficit) but gained some weight. Got the thyroid tested and with the help of the medication, her weight is back to a normal level and we're back to CICO. It's not impossible to lose weight with low thyroid, just more difficult. 

As soon as you said it's hormones and CICO is garbage, I immediately thought of Jason Fung. Remember earlier when I said to question those you seek nutritional information from...

The kidney doc who studies the kidneys AND PUSHES A DETOX/FASTING TEA. (The kidneys already detox the body on their own. This is simply a product that no study has shown to be effective)

https://www.piquetea.com/pages/fasting-tea

His ability to leave out evidence based science on his site is appalling.

Here he is pushing IF to cure cancer, yet there's no study to back this up:

https://www.rsng.com/categories/movement-fuel/articles/could-7-days-of-fasting-protect-against-cancer

Fung's Cancer 'Fear Mongering' Article using 25 year old data:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/cancer-inc-4cece0eb4e07

And the rebuttal with updated charts that Fung failed to include, but were available to him:

https://nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/03/11/lies-from-fung/

And here's Fung's take on the Women's Health Initiative...not once stating the subjects in this test were post-menopausal:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/diet-wars-992db10afa2e 

Here's Fung refusing evidence-based medicine:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/corruption-evidence-based-medicine

Can you imagine MGS refusing evidence based testing? See how ridiculous it sounds? Let's say you have an ailment and go see this 'doc'...do you want this man treating you with something he's come up with or something that has been proven to work? What would your reaction be if you had a headache and this man told you to drink his tea instead of just taking two advil? Advil has been proven to work. His tea? Not so much. 

[Pug]

7 hours ago, txgolfjunkie said:

Good on you for citing studies. Very few folks do that these days and with the infinite amount of 'nutrition experts' on social media, very few cite studies to push their methodology. In fact, I would encourage you to question everyone you get information from. Do they back up their claims with actual studies? Do the studies include a large number of participants and what is the adherence rate? What other factors are they taking into effect other than 'oh we just gave them a low carb diet and let's see what happens' because there are hundreds of variables a test subject can change to get good/bad results. 

So let's break down this response...

The Fildes study, from what I'm reading, looks at the probability of an obese person obtaining a normal weight. While weight loss is getting overly complicated thanks to social media, one aspect that's not being assessed enough according to some nutrition experts I follow is the psychological side of weight loss. What are the triggers for someone to eat in excess? What environmental factors attribute to an excess in eating? What stress levels and other personal decisions are being made that lead to weight loss? Much like golf, it's more between the ears than anything else. Yes, it is discouraging to read, but at the same time, I'm considered overweight by BMI standards. BMI is too much of a broad stroke and doesn't account for body type. According to the BMI charts, Lebron James is overweight and JJ Watt is obese. Looking at hospital charts and tracking it solely on weight and height as the basis of the study leaves a lot of questions to be answered. 

The WHI study was based on post-menopausal women...ages 50-79. Do you know what happens to a woman's body/hormones pre and post menopause? It's a significant change to say the least. Weight loss in post-menopausal women is extremely difficult. To test post and apply it to pre menopause women is a true WTF moment. Geriatric dietitians actually will recommend a little more weight on the bones as you get older to help protect against falling injuries. Obviously they will promote a healthy weight but it's better to be a little heavier than skinny as you get into your senior years. I don't know why that's brought up in your response, but whoever is using this as a source to rebut CICO is leaving out critical components of the study. 

CICO is about energy balance. To lose fat, you need to be in a caloric deficit. If you gain fat, by definition, you are not in a caloric deficit. Maybe you gained fat because your metabolic rate is outside the average. Maybe you gained fat because you didn't track your calories accurately or underestimated your energy expenditure. Maybe you lost fat because you like ate foods that were less processed with more protein and fiber, all of which are factors that can increase energy expenditure. Different food choices affect the calories out portion of CICO. And as far as hormones go, I encourage you to go get tested. And then what happens if your hormones are fine? What's the excuse? I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but if people clamor about hormones go get tested and see that everything is normal, then what? I get the push for hormones for weight management but once it's fixed, it's CICO. My wife has hypothyroidism and takes medication for it daily. Before her diagnosis, she ate in a caloric deficit (albeit a small deficit) but gained some weight. Got the thyroid tested and with the help of the medication, her weight is back to a normal level and we're back to CICO. It's not impossible to lose weight with low thyroid, just more difficult. 

As soon as you said it's hormones and CICO is garbage, I immediately thought of Jason Fung. Remember earlier when I said to question those you seek nutritional information from...

The kidney doc who studies the kidneys AND PUSHES A DETOX/FASTING TEA. (The kidneys already detox the body on their own. This is simply a product that no study has shown to be effective)

https://www.piquetea.com/pages/fasting-tea

His ability to leave out evidence based science on his site is appalling.

Here he is pushing IF to cure cancer, yet there's no study to back this up:

https://www.rsng.com/categories/movement-fuel/articles/could-7-days-of-fasting-protect-against-cancer

Fung's Cancer 'Fear Mongering' Article using 25 year old data:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/cancer-inc-4cece0eb4e07

And the rebuttal with updated charts that Fung failed to include, but were available to him:

https://nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/03/11/lies-from-fung/

And here's Fung's take on the Women's Health Initiative...not once stating the subjects in this test were post-menopausal:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/diet-wars-992db10afa2e 

Here's Fung refusing evidence-based medicine:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/corruption-evidence-based-medicine

Can you imagine MGS refusing evidence based testing? See how ridiculous it sounds? Let's say you have an ailment and go see this 'doc'...do you want this man treating you with something he's come up with or something that has been proven to work? What would your reaction be if you had a headache and this man told you to drink his tea instead of just taking two advil? Advil has been proven to work. His tea? Not so much. 

I really appreciate the quality and thoughtfulness of your response. I will definitely take the time to dig down further on the information you have provided. However, saying I referred to CICO as garbage is a bit hyperbolic, but I do have to take responsibility for not elaborating further in my post regarding circumstances when CICO is successful and not. No excuses, I didn’t take the time to elaborate or refine the post. My concern is similar to yours regarding over simplified thinking regarding health and weight control. I welcome your criticism and the continuing effort by you and other contributors to this thread to advance the conversation. 

[Pug]

Hey txgolfjunkie, 

It is going to take a long time for me to reply to each of your points because you have given me so much to read. Thanks for supplying the links. Let’s just deal with the one I have had the chance to take a look at so far. You made the comment: Here he is pushing IF as a cure for cancer, but there is no study to back that up. So I read the article and that is not actually what he says, and I suggest anyone interested do the same. In the article the suggestion is that the research of Dr. Thomas Seyfried suggests that 7 day fasts may reduce the inflammation that a great deal of science indicates is a cause of cancer. It doesn’t say IF cures cancer. It’s a long step from possible prevention to a cure. The other thing I would question is, if the research of Dr. Thomas Seyfried isn’t a study, what is it? You may want to read it again. I still have to read each of the other articles you provided links to, plus I need to get the book by Dr. Layne Norton that was recommended and apparently has a great deal of information on calories. Fat Loss Forever I think it was called. I will be looking for that today and it will take a bit of time for me to read that as well.

 I do plan to get back to you on each of your other points, time permitting and just not all at once.

Cheers!

[txgolfjunkie]

Pug, that might be one of the most civilized responses I've ever encountered on the internet. I'm impressed. And yes, I reached on the 'IF cures cancer'. I retract that statement. 

To equate CICO to golf, CICO is the base TaylorMade driver head with all the adjustability options being your hormones, metabolism, etc. Without a performing head, your fine tune adjustments won't mean squat. On the other hand, moving the loft sleeve or weight track can better improve overall driver performance.  

A few studies regarding inflammation found that B-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) directly inhibits complex sets of proteins called inflammasome. BHB is a metabolite produced by the body in response to high-intensity exercise or a caloric restriction. That caloric restriction can be achieved by any sort of diet...keto, IF, south beach, low-carb, low-fat, etc. While none are a magic bullet for inflammation, they all help reduce inflammation. You'll find studies saying Keto reduces inflammation and others say IF reduce inflammation. But you have to ask why inflammation was reduced...which is derived from the overall caloric restriction. 

Let's keep this discussion going. 

[Pug]

7 hours ago, txgolfjunkie said:

Pug, that might be one of the most civilized responses I've ever encountered on the internet. I'm impressed. And yes, I reached on the 'IF cures cancer'. I retract that statement. 

To equate CICO to golf, CICO is the base TaylorMade driver head with all the adjustability options being your hormones, metabolism, etc. Without a performing head, your fine tune adjustments won't mean squat. On the other hand, moving the loft sleeve or weight track can better improve overall driver performance.  

A few studies regarding inflammation found that B-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) directly inhibits complex sets of proteins called inflammasome. BHB is a metabolite produced by the body in response to high-intensity exercise or a caloric restriction. That caloric restriction can be achieved by any sort of diet...keto, IF, south beach, low-carb, low-fat, etc. While none are a magic bullet for inflammation, they all help reduce inflammation. You'll find studies saying Keto reduces inflammation and others say IF reduce inflammation. But you have to ask why inflammation was reduced...which is derived from the overall caloric restriction. 

Let's keep this discussion going. 

Yes, definitely I am on board with keeping the conversation going. It’s our crazy season at work, so I have to ask for patience in adding to the dialogue, but I am definitely in, if for no other reason than I think you are even wider read on this topic than I. I will definitely get back to you. 

[MattF]

Well, that didn't last long. I have to give up the T25 and get back on the treadmill as my hips are done. I suspect my arthritis is making itself comfortable in my hips because it loves my knees and hands so much. So, I'm going to cool it with that, hit the treadmill and total gym for a few weeks and hit the T25 again to see what happens.

[tony@CIC]

1 hour ago, MattF said:

Well, that didn't last long. I have to give up the T25 and get back on the treadmill as my hips are done. I suspect my arthritis is making itself comfortable in my hips because it loves my knees and hands so much. So, I'm going to cool it with that, hit the treadmill and total gym for a few weeks and hit the T25 again to see what happens.

@MattF, my wife has suffered from both arthritis and migraines for years. She did a lot of investigating and ended up with a significant change in her diet. Note: not a weight loss diet, but rather changing out to a healthier one. Both migraines and arthritis are substantially reduced. Everyone is different but perhaps the same may work for you. 

[MattF]

3 hours ago, tony@CIC said:

@MattF, my wife has suffered from both arthritis and migraines for years. She did a lot of investigating and ended up with a significant change in her diet. Note: not a weight loss diet, but rather changing out to a healthier one. Both migraines and arthritis are substantially reduced. Everyone is different but perhaps the same may work for you. 

Thanks @tony@CIC. My diet is rather healthy right now, pretty sure I'm paying for a previous life of fun and adventure.

[MattF]

I did 2.25 miles yesterday arvo and 2 miles at 3.6mph this morning on the treadmill, along with 10 pushups after each walk (gotta start small!). So, that looks like my routine for the foreseeable future.

[tony@CIC]

34 minutes ago, MattF said:

I did 2.25 miles yesterday arvo and 2 miles at 3.6mph this morning on the treadmill, along with 10 pushups after each walk (gotta start small!). So, that looks like my routine for the foreseeable future.

That's great- keep at it.  Keep adding on to the pushups and you'll be at 50 in no time. 

[russtopherb]

I did 5 miles plus free weights at the gym last night and then my 10 minute on-demand workout this morning.

I am SORE. But feeling like I accomplished something Now I'm eating 2 scrambled eggs with some spinach for breakfast. Gotta take those steps to see results!

[MattF]

18 hours ago, tony@CIC said:

That's great- keep at it.  Keep adding on to the pushups and you'll be at 50 in no time. 

Thank you mate. 15 this morning because I could.

[tony@CIC]

20 minutes ago, MattF said:

Thank you mate. 15 this morning because I could.

Attaboy! 

[russtopherb]

According to my scale, I've dropped 6 lbs since I started exercising daily and cutting down on the food quantities. That would be roughly 2lbs per week if my scale is to be believed. Can't say I'm seeing anything yet as far as how my clothes are fitting, but I'm getting in the groove of the daily workout, a brisk walk on my lunch break, and making smarter decisions on food. Last night I had 3 slices of pizza at my in-laws and I felt like crap afterwards. Should have stopped at 2. I think that's good though, my body's starting to adjust and let me know what's too much.

[MattF]

My scale didn't move, much to my disappointment. However, I'm sticking to my treadmill twice a day and push ups, which I now do before and after the treadmill both times.

[Pug]

On 2/26/2020 at 7:07 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

You might want to go look up some of the stuff Dr Layne Norton has done on CICO. His fat loss forever book is really good resource that dives into the energy aspect of calories and so on.

Hi RickyBobby, I went to Indigo/Chapters to get a copy of this book only to learn it is not available in Canada. Just as well since I haven’t finished reading all of the material referred to by tvgolfjunkie in his post on CICO.

[RickyBobby_PR]

34 minutes ago, Pug said:

Hi RickyBobby, I went to Indigo/Chapters to get a copy of this book only to learn it is not available in Canada. Just as well since I haven’t finished reading all of the material referred to by tvgolfjunkie in his post on CICO.

He sells an ebook from his website biolayne.com

[Pug]

On 3/9/2020 at 9:03 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

He sells an ebook from his website biolayne.com

I just checked out the website and the nutrition book has my interest. I have 2 fitness training for instructors, a separate book on core and another on nutrition I am going to read first. I have bookmarked the site and it is likely that I will circle back to it to order the book, and thanks for the follow up.

[Pug]

On 3/2/2020 at 8:23 PM, Pug said:

Yes, definitely I am on board with keeping the conversation going. It’s our crazy season at work, so I have to ask for patience in adding to the dialogue, but I am definitely in, if for no other reason than I think you are even wider read on this topic than I. I will definitely get back to you. 

I had a long reply commenting on each of the articles you provided links to, but it looks like none of it made it through our firewalls. I will try to give it another try in the next couple of days.

[Pug]

On 3/14/2020 at 7:29 PM, Pug said:

I had a long reply commenting on each of the articles you provided links to, but it looks like none of it made it through our firewalls. I will try to give it another try in the next couple of days.

I am going to try this again. Due to the length of your post and the links you provided that I have now read this is going to be longer than I would want to put into a single post, so I am going to try to address one item at a time. 

I have been looking at what you have posted including the links. One of the comments you made was:

In fact, I would encourage you to question everyone you get information from. Do they back up their claims with actual studies? Having gone through your post and the links, I am going to encourage you to do the same, as you will see from the posts I am going to be making in response.

I'm considered overweight by BMI standards. BMI is too much of a broad stroke and doesn't account for body type. According to the BMI charts, Lebron James is overweight and JJ Watt is obese. Looking at hospital charts and tracking it solely on weight and height as the basis of the study leaves a lot of questions to be answered.

Agreed. The BMI specifically does not apply to pregnant women and elite level athletes. As it happens, I am neither.  However, those you referred to are. Nor does the BMI claim to be all things to all people, such as being able to predict other health issues that might be related to weight. For example it is not a good predictor for type 2 diabetes because a person can fall within a normal (i.e. not overweight or obese) weight range but still have type 2 diabetes. This applies particularly to people who have become badly deconditioned and who have reduced muscle mass. They will not register as underweight if the muscle had been replaced with fat. The condition is sometimes referred to as TOFI, thin on the outside, fat on the inside. Keeping in mind its limitations, the BMI will still give you an idea if you are overweight for your height, but it is not as good a guide in that regard as doing a waist compared to hips measurement, for example. At the same time, while it does not explicitly address different body types, it does provide a range that those body types can expect to fall within. We just should not read more into the BMI than it is intended to provide. More to follow.

[Pug]

I am responding once again to tvgolfjunkie's post from 27 February on page 92 regarding the calories in versus calories out discussion. Before we loose sight of what this forum is all about we would be well served to remember that it is a weight loss thread. It is not supposed to be the battle of dueling experts. I'm not one when it comes to issues of nutirtion and metabolism, so I have to read a lot to try to inform myself on what may or not may work. If not careful this discussion could decend into acromony, which I would rather avoid. That said, I still feel the need to respond to specific comments made in tvgolfjunkies post. I am going to copy portions of the post so readers do not have to flip back and forth between posts. Tvgolfjunkies posts are in black, and I am replhyiing in blue.

As soon as you said it's hormones and CICO is garbage, I immediately thought of Jason Fung. Remember earlier when I said to question those you seek nutritional information from...

The kidney doc who studies the kidneys AND PUSHES A DETOX/FASTING TEA. (The kidneys already detox the body on their own. This is simply a product that no study has shown to be effective)

https://www.piquetea.com/pages/fasting-tea

This disclaimer is on this web site: **These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. **

Contrary to your statement the word "detox" does not appear any where in the article cited. He has a side line in herbal teas. Jordan Spieth sells golf shoes. Ricky Fowler shills for an insurance company, and Arnie, god bless him, appeared prepared to sell anything for anyone who paid him to do it. Promoting products does not in any way impact their reputation as golfers, nor should it.

When I consider not just this comment but the entirety of this post it appears you simply have developed an antagonism for the Doctor and his support of fasting to help people who are obese or have type 2 diabetes loose weight. Is your point that herbal teas shouldn’t be used when fasting, or are you simply trying to discredit Dr. Fung? Why?

More to follow.

 

 

 

[Pug]

Continuing from my previous post regarding tvgolfjunkies post on February 27 found on page 92.

His ability to leave out evidence based science on his site is appalling. 

Here he is pushing IF to cure cancer, yet there's no study to back this up:

https://www.rsng.com/categories/movement-fuel/articles/could-7-days-of-fasting-protect-against-cancer

Speaking of being a pain in the butt, let's talk colorectal cancer. We have already discussed this comment earlier and you agreed it was a bit of an overstatement. Dr.Fung’s discussion concerns the work of biology professor Dr. Thomas Seyfried who suggests fasting can target the inflammation that contributes to the initiation and growth of tumors. Dr. Seyfried’s experiments “found that fasting massively reduced “tumour invasion” in models of brain cancer.’ If Dr. Seyfried’s work isn’t a study, what is it?

Also note that Dr Fung states: “Fasting isn’t a cure-all – healthy eating still matters. Modern medicine’s greatest challenges are metabolic diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and fatty liver, collectively known as metabolic syndrome. The presence of any of these diseases massively increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer. That means premature death. And the roots of metabolic syndrome lie in the Western diet, with its abundance of sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavours, artificial sweeteners and over-dependence on refined grains.’ :

MGS readers can read the rest of the article for themselves and draw their own conclusions on what is said.

[Pug]

And continuing once again to address tvgolfjunkies post on 27 February found on page 92.

His ability to leave out evidence based science on his site is appalling. This appears to be a common theme in your attack on this doctor. In reviewing the entirety of your post I have noticed an interesting paradox. In each of the articles (except the advertisement for herbal tea) Dr. Fung refers to the research of others, sometimes at length. You have in turn rejected each of these articles even though they reference the research of others. I view Dr. Fung as a public educator as well as a kidney specialist. He is bringing forward infomation for laymen such as myself to consider. While he supports the use of fasting in certain circumstances he does not suggest that it will work for everyone. As MGS writers have noted in other circumstances concerning performance, Your Mileage May Vary. 

More to the point, I think it is interesting that you have rejected all of the evidence based information that the doctor refers to yourself, and than have turned around and accused him of doing the same thing himself. If this was deliberate it would be hypocrisy. I don't think that was your intent. I simply think you did not consider the entirety of your post.

Now here is the irony. Stay with me, this next post is long.

 

 

[Pug]

Continuing with my response to tvgolfjunkie's post from February 27 found on page 92:

Fung's Cancer 'Fear Mongering' Article using 25 year old data:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/cancer-inc-4cece0eb4e07

You refer to this as fear mongering. After reading the article I can only conclude that you’re easily frightened. It also appears that you did not read the article closely. Stating that the article uses 25 year old data will mislead readers into thinking that only one study was referred to. That is false.

 My take away on the article is that using the fear of cancer is big business. With respect to whether cancer treatments have reduced the rate of cancer, there was this comment in the first paragraph of the article: “The American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC) was created in 1913 and stressed the importance of early detection and aggressive treatment. In the 1940s, they championed the routine use of the Pap smear for cervical cancer. It was hugely and stunningly successful as death rates from cervical cancer dropped quickly.”  

Once again it appears you are attributing comments of researchers referred to in the article as those of Fung himself. For example, the article refers to the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Dr. John Bailor III, who was a consultant for the New England Journal of Medicine and a lecturer at Harvard’s School of Public Health. It was Bailor who started to question the effectiveness of cancer research in the 1970’s, and eventually left the NCI.

 

In the same vein, you added this:

And the rebuttal with updated charts that Fung failed to include, but were available to him:

https://nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/03/11/lies-from-fung/

In the article you site with the interesting tag in the url address of “lies-from-fung” states the information is misleading among other reasons, because it not adjusted for age. In fact Bailor’s study was age adjusted at the time, and this misses the point of the article because its main thrust is that “cancer is the quintessential disease of aging”. The impact and frequency of cancer in other age groups is far smaller. I am going to comment further on this article shortly.

 Referring to Bailor’s research:

In the two decades from 1962 to 1982, the number of Americans who died of cancer increased by 56%. Adjusting for the increased population, this still represented a 25% increase in the rate of death from cancer, at a time when virtually every other disease showed decreasing mortality. Bailar III noted that the data “provide no evidence that some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer have had much overall effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical outcome — death. Indeed, with respect to cancer as a whole, we have slowly lost ground”. He wondered aloud “Why is cancer the only major cause of death for which age-adjusted mortality rates are still increasing?”

The article notes because of his comments, “Dr. Bailar III became almost universally reviled within the cancer research community he had once lead.” Bailor published a follow up paper 11 years later titled “Cancer Undefeated” noting the cancer rate had increased by another 2.7% from 1982 to 1994. Yup, that is 25 year old data. However, the article also noted cancer rates among children had dropped about 50% since the 1970’s. Cancer deaths among children (1,699 out of a total of 529,904) amounted to only 3% of all deaths. Back to the main thrust of the article: “cancer is the quintessential disease of aging”.

Here is part of the article that is not 25 year old data:” From 1969–2014, total deaths from heart disease dropped approximately 17% despite the increasing population base in the United States. …During that same time period, deaths from cancer rose a chilling 84%.” .” And from the New York Times in 2009 in an article titled “Advance Elusive in the Drive to Cure Cancer noted: “…the adjusted death rate for cancer had dropped only 5% from 1950 to 2005, compared to heart disease deaths, which had dropped 64% and for flu and pneumonia, which had dropped by 58%.” So that would be 15 year old data. Apparently James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix of DNA, noted in 2009 “…that cancer killed 560,000 Americans in 2006, more than 200,000 more than in 1970, the year before the ‘war’ began.” Even taking into consideration the increase in population during that period, this doesn't give the impression that science has cancer on the run.

I have an update on this data for you. Here's a statistic not included in the aritcle for you to consider: In 2020 in the US there will be 1,806,950 new cancer cases and 606,520 deaths. That's new cases, not existing cases. Fact, not fear mongering. Don't take my word for it. You can find that information here: https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!

More to follow. 

[Pug]

Further to my last post referring to this comment:

Fung's Cancer 'Fear Mongering' Article using 25 year old data:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/cancer-inc-4cece0eb4e07

The article than goes on to make its main point regarding the costs associated with cancer: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) budget for 2019 is $5.74 billion, paid from tax revenue. In 2013 there were 339 cancer charities in Canada pulling in $644 million. In the US, the American Cancer Society (ACS) generates over $800 million per year in donations. All that money is not going for research. According to this article, ACS paid 368 employees more than $100,000 each ($36,800,000). The lowest paid member of the leadership team was paid almost half a million. The CEO was paid a total package of $820,777 and the former chief operating officer was paid $2,343,992. 

The article notes that there have been many cancer “breakthroughs” in recent years, and notes they have made a difference, but not a big one. Cancer drugs are approved by the FDA if they show “efficacy with minimal side effects (toxicity)”. The problem is “efficacy” is defined in different ways. The question remains how helpful have the breakthroughs really been if the gold standard is to prove they allow cancer patients to live longer. From 1990 to 2002 68 % of FDA approval of oncology drugs was for other reasons. They didn’t improve survival rates. Most commonly they were approved because they shrank the size of the primary tumor by over 50%. See: J Clin Oncol 2003 Apr 1;21(7):1404–11. End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. Johnson JR et al. 

 Cancer kill because it spreads, not because it is big. Local cancer treatments such as surgery or radiation are useless once a cancer has metastasized, which is why surgeons go to great lengths to get it all. The majority of cancer drugs were based solely upon “efficacy” and not whether they extended patients lives for a significant time. The article notes From 1990–2002, 71 new drug approvals were granted, although due to approvals for multiple cancers, this only translated into 45 new drugs. Defining efficacy more rigorously as actually saving lives, only 12 medications cleared this bar in the 12 years from 1990–2002. These drugs mostly only extended life by only a few weeks or months. In that same time, the phrase ‘cancer breakthrough’ appeared in 691 published articles.” 691 “breakthroughs” resulting in 12 medications that extend life for the short term appears to be an exaggeration in these circumstances. The point of the article is all of the breakthroughs look great, but where “cancer is the quintessential disease of aging” these breakthroughs have had little real value for us old guys.

On a side note regarding "efficacy" my own doctor related a meeting with a drug manufacturer salesman. I don't recall now which disease the drug was intended to treat, but as my doctor related it the salesman urged mhy doctor to prescribe the drug for her patients who were not responding well to other modalities because the drug had been FDA approved and had proved in testing to be efficacious in 2% of cases. As my doctor noted, if she prescibed this drug to 50 patients, it would only help one of them. Efficacious. 

[Pug]

As indicated earlier, I said I would look at this further.

“And the rebuttal with updated charts that Fung failed to include, but were available to him:

https://nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/03/11/lies-from-fung/ “

 

A couple of observations on this. First, it doesn’t appear this author has not read the article closely either. One of the comments is this: The rate of death from cancer has declined dramatically from 1950-2015 in all age groups except those older than 85. This is due to a dramatic improvement in cancer treatments at younger ages and a drop in lung cancer at older ages. As noted earlier, cancer is quintessentially a disease of old age.

The charts he posted are in some cases identified as from legitimate sources, however, I am not going to spend my time trying to determine the context in which they were developed. That’s a rabbit hole I don’t have time for.

 I suspect the author of this article has his own agenda. I went to the home page for this article and found this: I have no words #8. Save yourself from coronavirus. Buy my beef liver product today. There was also this on the home page:

“Coronavirus starter pack:

-Cold showers

-Sun/vitamin D

-Beef liver

-Ketones

-Elderberry

-Steaks

-Sleep 8+ hours

-Exercise

-Sauna

-Most importantly: cut s*** out of your diet.

Soap and masks won’t save you. Your immune system will. Support it with what it needs.”

Right, save yourself from coronavirus  by buying his beef liver extract, using cold showers and Sun/vitamin D. Remind me how sun/vitamin D worked out for all of the good folks in sunny Italy.

 BTW on the subject of having an agenda, in addition to buying his beef liver extract you can support Kevin by donating $5 a month to his blog: https://nutritionalrevolution.org/support-me/. Not to be rude, but how is this anything more than a scrapping off the internet?

[Pug]

Continuing from the previous post:

1.     Sisyphus, king of Ephyra, had angered the gods. We are never told the precise nature of the crime that had the gods annoyed but the punishment was to be condemned to push a huge rock up a hill until he finally got it perched at the peak. Only when he accomplished this task would he be free. Sisyphus strove mightily to push that obnoxious pebble to the top of the hill, only to have it roll back down once he got it to the top. Down he rushed to start pushing it back up again, through all eternity. This is the classical definition of hell: the endless repetition of a meaningless task.

 

Which of course brings us to the subject of yo-yo dieting and the great calories in vs. calories out debate.

Now on this point: “And here's Fung's take on the Women's Health Initiative...not once stating the subjects in this test were post-menopausal:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/diet-wars-992db10afa2e  “

The WHI web page is here: https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI Home.aspx . The dietary modification trial was a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern compared to a usual dietary pattern would reduce the risk of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. That specific study is here: https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/Dietary Trial.aspx.

In part you wrote: I don't know why that's brought up in your response, but whoever is using this as a source to rebut CICO is leaving out critical components of the study (that it involved post-menstrual women.) I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make, admittedly badly, which was simply CICO does not work for everyone, contrary to what you seem to be asserting. It didn’t work for this otherwise reasonably healthy cohort over the long term. However, if you agree CICO did not work for post-menopausal women, than you have agreed it doesn’t work for everyone. That’s my point. YMMV.

And while I appreciate the comment regarding the change in hormones for post-menopausal women, the primary hormones we are concerned with in regard to diet are insulin and cortisol, not estrogen and those related to menopause. With respect to your comment on getting tested for hormones, let’s keep in mind that it is remarkably difficult to measure insulin, which is why the A1c blood sugar test is used for a proxy. I suspect the testing your wife had was specific to her issue. I don’t want to conflate one with the other.

To be fair, I should have added to my original post which started this discussion that if you are not badly overweight CICO will work in the short term. But as we all know, if you return to your original diet the weight will return, and in some cases you may gain even more.  At that time you may then try a different style of diet with essentially the same intent, namely calorie restriction, only to have the same result occur again. Welcome to Yo-Yo Dieting 101. [For anyone unclear on the meaning of yo-yo dieting, see Sisyphus, para 1.]

So to be clear, my assertion is that if you are badly overweight a CICO approach to dieting will not be successful in the long run, but a change in life style that involves healthy eating will last over the long term provided the life style change is maintained and modified as required. Having done both, I was only able to get to a healthy weight and put tuype 2 diabetes into remission when I permanently changed my lifestyle, which in my case meant using intermittent fasting. IF is not for everyone. YMMV. But don't take my word for it. Try reading "Why Diets Fail (Because You're Addicted to Sugar) by Nicole M. Avena, PHD, a neuroscientist and addiction researcher and John R. Talbot ( a financial analyst). All kinds of science for the curious. They even have an 8 step plan to take people through the process of sugar withdrawal. Here's a tip. Step 5 is not apologizing to all of the vegetables you insulted in your life. 

Hey tvgolfjunkie, you expressed an interest in the psychological causes of being overweight. I think this book is for you.

[Pug]

Continuing from the previous post:

1.     Sisyphus, king of Ephyra, had angered the gods. We are never told the precise nature of the crime that had the gods annoyed but the punishment was to be condemned to push a huge rock up a hill until he finally got it perched at the peak. Only when he accomplished this task would he be free. Sisyphus strove mightily to push that obnoxious pebble to the top of the hill, only to have it roll back down once he got it to the top. Down he rushed to start pushing it back up again, through all eternity. This is the classical definition of hell: the endless repetition of a meaningless task.

Which of course brings us to the subject of yo-yo dieting and the great calories in vs. calories out debate.

Now on this point: “And here's Fung's take on the Women's Health Initiative...not once stating the subjects in this test were post-menopausal:

https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/diet-wars-992db10afa2e  “

The WHI web page is here: https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI Home.aspx . The dietary modification trial was a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern compared to a usual dietary pattern would reduce the risk of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. That specific study is here: https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/Dietary Trial.aspx.

In part you wrote: I don't know why that's brought up in your response, but whoever is using this as a source to rebut CICO is leaving out critical components of the study (that it involved post-menstrual women.) I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make, admittedly badly, which was simply CICO does not work for everyone, contrary to what you seem to be asserting. It didn’t work for this otherwise reasonably healthy cohort over the long term. However, if you agree CICO did not work for post-menopausal women, than you have agreed it doesn’t work for everyone. That’s my point. YMMV.

And while I appreciate the comment regarding the change in hormones for post-menopausal women, the primary hormones we are concerned with in regard to diet are insulin and cortisol, not estrogen and those related to menopause. With respect to your comment on getting tested for hormones, let’s keep in mind that it is remarkably difficult to measure insulin, which is why the A1c blood sugar test is used for a proxy. I suspect the testing your wife had was specific to her issue. I don’t want to conflate one with the other.

To be fair, I should have added to my original post which started this discussion that if you are not badly overweight CICO will work in the short term. But as we all know, if you return to your original diet the weight will return, and in some cases you may gain even more.  At that time you may then try a different style of diet with essentially the same intent, namely calorie restriction, only to have the same result occur again. Welcome to Yo-Yo Dieting 101. [For anyone unclear on the meaning of yo-yo dieting, see Sisyphus, para 1.]

So to be clear, my assertion is that if you are badly overweight a CICO approach to dieting will not be successful in the long run, but a change in life style that involves healthy eating will last over the long term provided the life style change is maintained and modified as required. Having done both, I was only able to get to a healthy weight and put tuype 2 diabetes into remission when I permanently changed my lifestyle, which in my case meant using intermittent fasting. IF is not for everyone. YMMV. But don't take my word for it. Try reading "Why Diets Fail (Because You're Addicted to Sugar) by Nicole M. Avena, PHD, a neuroscientist and addiction researcher and John R. Talbot ( a financial analyst). All kinds of science for the curious. They even have an 8 step plan to take people through the process of sugar withdrawal. Here's a tip. Step 5 is not apologizing to all of the vegetables you insulted in your life. 

Hey tvgolfjunkie, you expressed an interest in the psychological causes of being overweight. I think this book is for you.

[Pug]

Finally, you cited this and once again I read the article:

 Here's Fung refusing evidence-based medicine:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/corruption-evidence-based-medicine

 

Regarding EBM, among others, the article quotes Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet who said in 2015: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Also quoted is Dr. Marcia Angelli, the former editor in chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine  (NEJM) who in 2009 wrote: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor”.

Fung’s point is evidence based medicine is completely worthless if the evidence base is false or corrupted. Why or how could this happen? As cited in this article, another former editor of the NEJM, Dr. RELMAN said in 2002: “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful”

 

What can I say, greed conquers all? The reasoning is obvious: if I pay for the research I expect the results I am looking for to be produced by the person I pay. The difference between industry funded research trials and government funded trials is that when the pharmaceutical industry runs the trial they “…are 70% more likely than government funded trials to show a positive result.” And as you might expect trials that provide a negative result are less likely to be published:

Negative trials (those that show no benefit for the drugs) are likely to be suppressed. For example, in the case of antidepressants, 36/37 studies that were favourable to drugs were published. But of the studies not favorable to drugs, a paltry 3/36 were published. Selective publication of positive (for the drug company) results means that a review of the literature would suggest that 94% of studies favor drugs where in truth, only 51% were actually positive.

Here is the conclusion from the article concerning the issues with EBM:

1. Selective publication
2. Pre-determined outcomes
3. Advertorials
4. Reprint revenues
5. Potential bribery of journal editors
6. Publication bias
7. Financial conflicts of interests

When the evidence base of medicine is bought and paid for, people suffer. Unfortunately, doctors and universities have been willing participants in this game. We need to end it now. End the corruption of the universities. Stop the bribery of doctors. Stay tuned, the non-profit Public Health Collaboration, currently based in the UK, but soon encompassing Canada, Ireland, USA, and Australia is gearing up to tackle this issue of corruption in medical science.

 

I think I have the flavor of what you are doing now. Unfortunately it seems if it has Fung’s name attached you are going to disrespect the commentary without carefully considering what is actually being written. The one thing that I have found most attractive about the MGS forums is the generally respectful conversations. I am sorry to say I found the analytical quality of this post not up to your usual standard.

 I invite anyone of the datacratic MGS readers to go through these articles and reach their own conclusions. With that, I have finished responding to this post.

 Man, I gotta get a life. This working at home is not working. Back to the PuttOut.

 

 

[kardboard.kid]

OK,

I lost weight, and it had nothing to do with what ever that all was.   Just live my life like my grandfather taught.  Everything in moderation.  You might want to try that.