weight loss surgery not really effective, admits top surgeon

It's pretty common knowledge for those who access the Internet, that weight loss surgery is not only ineffective but risky.

But recently, Dr "Now" of "My 600 lb life" admitted on TV that weight loss surgery isn't effective after 5 years, a telling admission for him since he actively, is pursuing clients for his surgery although there is some evidence that he might be doing the safer gastric sleeve, more than the gastric bypass.

Weight loss surgery, all of it, is based on an idea we now know to be false i.e. that the appetite center is in the stomach. 

The appetite center is in the brain which is why weight loss surgery isn't effective unless you diet and exercise which of course, causes a weight loss without surgery!

The inventor of the gastric bypass, Edward Mason, found, in the 1960's, his ulcer surgery patients were losing weight and thought he could do similar surgery on overweight folks with the same results.  Thus began a long era of surgeons quite literally, going to the bank, doing weight loss surgery procedures.  Because there was so little followup, surgeons were neither aware of the high rate of regain nor the alarming number of deaths and/or repercussions.

When one procedure proved ineffective as well as risky, another one came into vogue.  Right now, the gastric sleeve, a surgery which calls for the permanent removal of up to 90% of the stomach is the surgery "du jour".  

Trouble is, the remaining "thumb sized" stomach which results from a sleeve gastrectomy, probably does not digest B12, fats or proteins really well.  And this surgery, although safer than the gastric bypass, is not reversible.

In a society where the medical profession is profit making, abuse is common.  Thankfully, the internet can inform people but sadly, many people either don't have access to the Internet or cannot really utilize their access well enough to do research.

Less than 5% of dieters can keep the weight off and that number who can keep off weight, is only 2% higher among weight loss surgery patients...that is less than 7% of weight loss surgery patients can keep off all of their weight for any amount of time.

Bottom line, if you want to take off weight, you might be best to just do the diet and exercise part and skip the surgery.  (Diet, unless you do it very carefully, has its own set of risks).

Garcinia Cambogia - neither effective nor safe

Weight loss supplements are many and varied.  The idea of just consuming a pill or a drink, appeals more to prospective dieters than counting calories or points and/or exercising.

One supplement I often see advertised, is Garcinia Cambogia, whose advocates are all over blogs like this one.  Whenever I post a blog here, whether about weight loss surgery or some other diet craze, I almost, invaribly, get a comment or two advocating Garcinia Cambogia and so I decided to research it a bit.

In investigating it, I found that there were concerns about how safe it was to use as well as not being effective for what they are pushing it for ... weight loss. The active ingredient in Garcinia Cambogia which supposedly causes weight loss, is hydroxycitric acid, or HCA = this is also included in other weight loss supplements.

In one study, the average weight loss in folks taking Garcinia Cambogia, was 2 lbs and the researchers couldn't really say if it was the lowered calories or the supplement that caused the weight loss, but they concluded it was likely the lower calorie intake of the cohort that caused the weight loss.

Garcinia Cambogia is apparently a tropical fruit which resembles grapefruit - people who have eaten it, say it tastes good but the medical profession does not feel it's a good weight loss supplement. As for the claims of lowering the blood sugar levels in diabetics, this, again, is unproven.

One article advocates a person wishing to lose weight would be better off, buying an exercise DVD than investing in Garcinia Cambogia.  I agree there.  Although convincing people to buy Garcinia Cambogia might be a cash cow for those selling it, it appears to be a waste of time for those wanting to lose weight or control diabetes. 

Carnie Wilson - 2nd weight loss surgery

Carnie Wilson, singer and daughter of Beach Boy, Brian Wilson (pictured in red dress in photo with her singing group);  got a RNY gastric bypass, 12 years ago. She lost 150 lbs initially, and told the press, "It was so easy -- it was like I blinked my eyes and the scale went WHUUP!". 

A frenzy of people signed up for gastric bypass surgeries. One person who worked for a weight loss surgery surgeon, told the news that every time Carnie Wilson appeared on TV, their phones rang off the hook!  The surgical group who did Carnie's surgery, dramatically simulcasting on the internet during her surgery and launching a huge publicity campaign in partnership with the manufacturer of surgical instruments, went from doing 5-7 weight loss surgery procedures a week to doing 12 weight loss surgery procedures a week.  The future looked rosy, for Carnie and the Weight Loss surgery industry.

But dark clouds were gathering on the horizon.

Soon after Carnie Wilson's famous quote to the press above, she began regaining the weight, despite fighting hard to keep her weight off, including, hours of exercise, engaging personal trainers, putting salt on desserts so she wouldn't be tempted and publicly humiliating herself, talking about her weight problem. By 2011 when she appeared on the Dr Oz show, she'd regained to her average weight before surgery, about 240 which is a lot for her since she's only 5'1".

Apparently, she lately, had a gastric band placed over her bypass to force a restriction of her food intake, and has lost 30 lbs so far.

The bottom line is the gastric bypass or any weight loss surgery, is no free ride.  Just like using a non surgical tool like weight watchers, it's a lot of work on a daily basis for the rest of your life or you will regain the weight and/or get sick!  A percentage of gastric bypass patients get sick anyway, even if they do everything right.

Carnie Wilson, like so many others, was given the impression surgery worked automatically and easily.



That so many people embark on weight loss surgery seemingly ill prepared for the reality, can be at least, partially blamed on allowing the mass advertising of surgery without requiring the advertiser to list side effects and disclaimers like "results not typical".  Some weight loss surgery surgeons have an annual income of $1.5 million dollars - people have done strange things for much less money than that.

Let's hope the second weight loss surgery procedure will bring her what she's looking for.  She's such a beautiful woman and a great singer and somehow all of that tends to get lost in her frantic efforts to get slimmer. To me, that is sad.

Click on this blog link to see photos and story.

Update on second person to have brain surgery for weight loss

Carol Poe, 60 years old, had had a "stomach stapling" (probably a VBG) and later was "revised" to a gastric bypass. Her original weight was almost 500 lbs - she's 5'2" and she still weighed 287 lbs when she went in to surgery. Apparently neither of the weight loss surgeries she had, had "worked" and of course, dieting hasn't worked either so Poe happily offered herself as a guinea pig for a new brain surgery which is supposed to kill the appetite. Neurosurgeon, Dr Don Whiting of West Virginia University is the one testing the procedure.

This surgery calls for two deep probes to be placed in her brain and 2 pace makers to be placed in her chest. The pace makers send out electrical currents to the probes and this supposedly kills her appetite. Her surgery lasted 3 hours and she was awake for the entire thing because when they place the probes they have to make sure they don't injure something else or take away any of her abilities.

She appeared on the Oprah show today (the show was originally aired in April) and said that after 2 months, she had lost a whopping (NOT) 11 lbs. She told Oprah that she didn't have any cravings and that she was eating a more healthy diet and that she is now going to the gym.

It should be noted that just going to the gym for two months could have explained the weight loss and that if she's only lost 11 lbs in two months even with going to the gym, she's not really cut down her food intake very much which suggests the surgery may not be cutting the appetite the way they hoped it would.

She's Whiting's second patient and he wants to do another soon. One of the requirements to be a guinea pig for this surgery, is to have had a gastric bypass (which apparently failed to cause a good weight loss), Whiting told the press in April. Don said he has to make sure the surgery is effective and safe.

Why Oprah decided to give this procedure her seal of approval by having the patient on her show (with Dr Oz) is unknown. But she made it clear on her show that she had no plans of having this brain surgery.

Carol Poe looks like she's survived the surgery well (Dr Whiting stated that there is a 1 in 100 chance of stroke or even death with this surgery) and she told Oprah that the loss of the 11 lbs has made it easier for her to move around and mow her grass. But likely, rather than the 11 lbs, it's been her trips to the gym which have made the difference in her ability to move better. Minus 11 lbs she still weighs 276 lbs at 5'2".

Dr Whiting expects to get FDA approval for this procedure in the next 2 years however, if Carol's lack of weight loss is any indicator, his path for approval may not be easy.

A similar surgery is used for Parkinson's disease but of course, long term repercussions with the new weight loss surgery could include the pacemakers moving around in the body or forming abscesses, brain damage from the flow of electricity into the brain and more.

Review- Stress Eater Diet book

I have been asked to take part in a "blog tour" reviewing the book, the Stress Eater Diet by Robert Posner, MD and Linda Hlivka, MBA, C.N. Since I tend to be a stress puppy myself, I was intrigued when approached to review this book.

Robert Posner, co author of the book, is an internist who has apparently run a Weight Loss Clinic in the Washington D.C. area for the last 20 years. Having a theory that weight gain in some people could be caused by an imbalance of serotonin in the brain, he and Linda Hlivka, a nutritionist-chemist, developed a Supplement called Serotonin-Plus. This supplement's ingredients read like a multivitamin but it does have "green tea extract" in it which has been touted in some circles to raise metabolism, and also contains 50 mg of caffeine in each pill (and that has been proven to 'raise metabolism' but is not necessarily a healthy way of doing it). Dr Posner wrote a book published in 2002, advocating this supplement but since then, some groups have de-bunked the green tea theory including consumer group, Center for Science in the public Interest (CSPI). A government document detailing a suit questioning weight loss claims about a drink called Enviga containing green tea extract and caffeine, includes the following:

CSPI's scientists have concluded that "Enviga is just a highly caffeinated and overpriced diet soda, and is exactly the kind of faddy, phony diet aid it claims not to be." [Watchdog group sues Coke, Nestlé for bogus "Enviga claims." CSPI news release, Feb 2007] http://www.cspinet.org/new/200702011.html Meanwhile, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has asked the marketers for copies of all scientific studies, clinical trials, tests, and/or papers that support the calorie-burning claims-and information about any group that may have sponsored the studies. [Attorney General demands that Coca-Cola, Nestle prove claims of 'calorie-burning' beverage. Connecticut Attorney General press release, Feb 5, 2007]

To Dr Posner's credit, he does not include a plug for this supplement in "THE STRESS EATER DIET". In fact, it's not mentioned at all except in the bio of Linda Hlivka which names her as the chemist involved in developing "Serotonin-Plus".

One of my personal frustrations with the book which, by the way, IS a good read with plenty of worthwhile information in it which can help us all to be less stressed, was that for some reason, Dr Posner and Ms Hlivka chose to not include their cites and sources as footnotes in the traditional manner, so although many studies were mentioned, one has no way of knowing when, where or how these studies were done. In the section called "References" at the end of the book, it mentions that cites and references can be found at http://www.stresseaterdiet.com/references.html however that page returns a "not found" error. The few studies listed in the references section are ones we all know about and not the studies supporting the book's theories about Serotonin and weight control.

So I had my work cut out for me. The book is a collection of tips about weight loss i.e. log your food, exercise, reduce stress using yoga and deep breathing etc, eat slowly and more - things which will cause weight loss on any program, but I wanted to check out some of the claims new to me which were as follows:

1. That eating foods high in tryptophan would cause the brain to produce more serotonin and that this is a good thing and one which would aid in weight control

2. That tryptophan is the precursor to serotonin

3. That although carbs are high in tryptophan, they only produce a momentary relief and thus are not as effective as foods like turkey etc i.e. low carb foods.

With reference to number 1, I did find a few articles (not any studies though) that suggest that eating tryptophan rich foods would cause the brain to produce more serotonin and some opinions that this does aid in weight control. Of most interest in that area was an article sent down a listserve for medical providers by a P.A. The article was not from a medical journal but still is interesting because it opined by mixing substances rich in tryptophan and taking anti depressant drugs which are serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI's) could cause a syndrome called "serotonin syndrome" which according to the article could result in:

• Cognitive-behavioral symptoms like confusion, disorientation, agitation, irritability, unresponsiveness and anxiety.


• Neuromuscular symptoms like muscle spasms, exaggerated reflexes, muscular rigidity, tremors, loss of coordination and shivering.


• Autonomic nervous system symptoms like fever, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate, raised blood pressure and dilated pupils.

Source:February 27, 2007 - PERSONAL HEALTH - A Mix of Medicines That Can Be Lethal
By JANE E. BRODY

While this is obviously extreme and not necessarily a risk with eating a lot of turkey, the article did contain the statement that:

"Although serotonin poisoning can be caused by an antidepressant overdose, it more often results from a combination of an S.S.R.I. or MAOI with another serotonin-raising substance."

And this causes one to wonder whether it's a good idea to fool around with Mother Nature when it comes to brain chemicals at all... even with food sources, a question asked in the book, "PROZAC BACKLASH" by Joseph Glenmullen, MD. Glenmullen opined from his research and working with many patients over a long time span that messing with the serotonin balance in the brain could cause problems such as Parkinsonism.

As for my question of whether Tryptophan IS really the precursor of serotonin, my research suggested that it is generally theorized that, yes, it is at least ONE of the precursors. Again I didn't find any studies but many educated opinions on this.

And finally with reference to question 3, eschewing carbs in favor of low carb meats, I found that the jury is still out on this with at least one very respected researcher at MIT disagreeing with the authors' low carb suggestions.

Dr Judith Wurtman has apparently done a lot of research on carbs and serotonin and in an article carried on the MIT site, Wurtman stated that carbs were essential for good health and that a low carb diet could result in some serious cravings (due to the body's need for carbs). Wurtman feels that stopping carbohydrates could not only affect the brain's serotonin levels but also affect your mood: (Note apparently Wurtman's remarks are based on her years of studies which are available in peer reviewed journals.)

"Wurtman, director of the Program in Women's Health at the MIT Clinical Research Center, and colleagues have found that when you stop eating carbohydrates, your brain stops regulating serotonin, a chemical that elevates mood and suppresses appetite. And only carbohydrate consumption naturally stimulates production of serotonin.

In "The Stress Eater Diet" Dr Posner and Ms Hlivka are not clear as to whether one should go low carb for life because they say you slowly add carbs back after the first week of "induction" (of a 4 week program). However, comments like the following suggest to the reader that carbs in general are not well thought of by the authors:

"pasta has little nutritional value" (page 122)

However, this conflicts with what I have often read and that is that Pasta is rich in B complex vitamins for one, a vitamin which Dr Posner stated he feels is a direct stress reducer, a statement accepted by mainstream medicine.

(And it's well known that one gets much more of the vitamin out of food than out of supplements).

Dr Posner and Ms Hlivka are also very much opposed to eating sugar which is OK but as substitute, they recommend, by brand name, sweeteners like aspartame and splenda which is somewhat controversial now that many studies have shed suspicion on the safety of these chemicals. Even the CSPI, once on the "no sugar" bandwagon i.e. do aspartame instead of sugar, has recanted on this position after the well respected Ramazzini Institute studies which found a link between leukemia and aspartame consumption.

The program in "THE STRESS EATER DIET" recommends cardio exercise which, as folks know, I greatly agree with, and the chapter on exercise is excellent, as is the chapter on stress. Perhaps we have heard some of the suggestions given before but somehow having it all in one place, reminds us that we need to do some of these things to reduce stress in our lives.

I hope that in a future edition of the book, the authors _do_ consider including the cites in a footnoted manner because I think today, most of us being bombarded on a daily basis with all kinds of claims, do question uncited material.

For example, one of the statements I would like to see cited is the authors' claim that 90 percent of those diagnosed with type II diabetes are overweight. The percentages I have read have been that 33 percent of type II diabetics have never been overweight and this has been my own observation also.

All in all, I liked the book - it is readable, well written and interesting, and provides a lot of useful suggestions and some things I did not know even with my having read so many diet books.

And most of all, it is one of the only books which gives us real world practical suggestions on reducing stress which I, in agreeing with the authors, feel is a major factor in many of the ailments we suffer.

As a weight loss program, well, if you do the things they suggest such as, log your food daily, count your calories, measure your portions, substitute low cal food for fast food etc and exercise at least 20 minutes - 30 minutes a day, yes you will lose weight whether you eat foods high in trypophan or not. Unfortunately, studies have suggested only about 5 percent of the public are able to be this vigilant on a long term basis. But even if you don't use "The Stress Eater Diet" as a diet book, I feel reading it can be helpful in getting more healthy and reducing stress.

Would this book make a good addition to your library? I would say, probably so. I know I found it rather enlightening.

Where you get it: The Stress Eater Diet Website

Other blogs participating in the "blog tour" can be found here!

Biggest Loser - revisited

As you'all know here, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. And people have written comments to show me the error of my ways and if I see merit in what they say, I am more than glad to admit I was in error.

I guess my humble blog has gotten the attention of one of the winners on "the Biggest Loser" show, second season, Pete Thomas. Thomas lost a lot of weight in a 9 months - 185 lbs and apparently if his blog is to be believed, he's kept it all off (but of course, Eric Chopin didn't tell his cyberfriends how much he had regained so that's why I say this with a grain of salt.... IF his blog is true).

Be that as it may, he is ANGRY at me. Very angry and has written a long comment which raises some issues that I think I should address in my main blog. So here goes:

Pete writes:

"You are doing such a poor job in your analysis. The media does want to see failure."

Ignoring the insult, (and to use Pete's phraseology, "it doesn't take a big leap in intelligence" to realize that ad hominem is a faulty argument tool), I feel Pete is very wrong. The media did NOT to this day, cover much about Eric Chopin's massive weight gain nor the weight gain of other "big losers". And there is a good reason for this. The media is driven and financed by the diet industry, a billion dollar industry of which "the Biggest Loser Show" is of course, a part (it sells products when folks watch the show unless they fast forward through the commercials like I do and not a lot of folks DO that). And the diet industry is pushing the myth that "all of us" can "get the body we always wanted" just by buying this or that diet when in fact studies have found (all of them have FOUND THIS, PETE) that 95 percent of people who diet to lose weight, regain the weight within 5 years! And the results of weight loss surgery are not much better - even with a permanent change to the body, 93 percent of patients cannot keep all the weight off! And most patients still end up in the severely to clinically obese zone and then WITH a new set of comorbidities. (the Swedish Obesity study and others). I've given these cites in some of my other blogs so won't labor through them here.

Pete gives as his reason for his belief that the media is highlighting failure as this:

"It does not take a giant leap of intelligence to see this. Look at the local news or national news – How much positive vs negative news do you see? The media thrive on success and more so on FAILURE!"

True, negativity and fear dominate the media EXCEPT when it comes to selling product and that means the DIET INDUSTRY so most of what we see on the media is SUCCESS to perpetuate the myth that "most people can successfully keep off the weight". As I mentioned before, I saw no mention of Eric Chopin in the news and a search of Google news I did right now, came up with the following message:

Your search - "eric chopin" - did not match any documents.

So I am wondering, Pete, if your theory is true and the media is highlighting failure in weight loss, why didn't Eric's appearing on the Oprah show even warrant a SMALL mention in the news?

And according to Pete's biography on his website, he's appeared rather often in this media which he says "highlights failure"

"He has appeared on ABC's The View, The 700 Club, and eXtra as well as being featured in People Magazine, Runners World, TV Guide, The Detroit Free Press, inTouch Weekly and Real Health."

Next Pete you are getting a bit confused here when you wrote:

"One successful author I know says ANY publicity is good publicity. He FRAMED BAD reviews of his book! Be assured – your blog qualifies as good publicity."

Doubtless you were referring to the saying sometimes attributed to Will Rogers but apparently said by many that "there is no such thing as bad publicity, only publicity".

First of all, I think you are overrating the nuisance value of my humble blog so if that's your worry, please don't worry... I'm sure no one on the show or in charge of the show would be convinced by this blog. First of all, the show is a cash cow and you will find that people _really don't care_ whether it's healthy or "right" if it's bringing in the bucks. First American TV principle... that you have not encountered this, leads me to wonder what planet have you been living on? :)

Secondly, actually there IS such a thing as bad publicity... Joyce Brothers said that and we can see that bad publicity helped greatly in defeating Sarah Palin in the recent election. Her name was on every lip so she got plenty of publicity, all bad.

And third, if you feel that my blog is good publicity then it should help your business of "motivational speaking" and thus, why are you so angry at me? I must say, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit (well more than a bit).

So bottom line, my blog may be bad publicity for the show but as long as the ratings soar (whether people who watch it LIKE the show or not), the networks will run the show (and sell the sponsor's products). And people wanting to believe the myth that "all of us can have the body we always wanted" will continue to call you for "motivational speaking" right?

You then accused me of being ignorant so you wrote patronizingly:

"So let me educate you a little – Oprah called Eric – Remember! He turned her down initially. It is a known fact that contestants regularly turn down the media ‘When they start gaining their weight back’. You just don’t know that because your not knowledgeable enough on these things. So let me help you."

First of all, Pete, seems you didn't read my blog very well because I SAID that Oprah had called Eric previously and that he'd turned down the appearance (what he said on the "Oprah" show). Perhaps you might be the one needing help in reading things a bit more carefully. And by the way, Pete, in the statement of yours "Your not knowledgeable" I think you meant to say "YOU'RE not knowledgeable", right?

You further wrote:

"Oprah called a lot of us a few months back and those of us familiar with the process KNEW exactly where the show was going."

Have you counted the number of POSITIVE "amazing weight loss" shows Oprah has done? It way exceeds the couple of "weight loss problem" shows she's done.

"Misery loves company. My opinion - Oprah wanted company in her own struggles (or rather her producers choose to portray it as such)."

Aren't YOU assuming something about Oprah i.e. her being "miserable"? She's never been extremely large and she's sold a bunch of magazines and shows with her latest "confessions". And I do not see Oprah appearing on shows like "The Biggest Loser" which regularly humiliate people of size. Bottom line, there is no evidence that she's feeling miserable at all. Only that she's a very clever TV show host who knows how to get the audience's attention.

After that, you wrote:

"I will leave you to your ignorance on that one and I will just continue to laugh from a distance."

And I ask why you have to laugh at me at all and if life being so slim is so wonderful, why are you so angry? Happy people don't write angry, ad hominem letters like you wrote me. A psychologist might have a field day with your letter, Pete. :)

Then you ask:

"WHY is the type of weight loss on the show unhealthy?"

That you don't know, suggests you may be the one who lacks knowledge especially that you mentioned no one has shown you any evidence of this... incredible since evidence exists all over the internet and in many books that quick weight loss is unhealthy.

Your body cannibalizes organs and muscles with a quick weight loss and lowers your metabolism so that you will gain more quickly. Since you are apparently was unaware of the tons of stuff available written about this, you may be more amenable to watching a video than reading an article or book, so I will provide a video explaining the process:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC0gnUwmBg0

I would also recommend Dr Linda Bacon's book, "HEALTH AT EVERY SIZE" which well covers obesity research.

Additionally, working out so hard and so long every day (and in most cases, high impact) is foolish and ASKING for injury... just ask the personal trainer at your local gym about this. Again much has been written about this on the medical and fitness sites... if you haven't yet seen it, you obviously do NOT want to see it. Because it's easy to find.

The show not only sacrifices health for audience appeal (no one wants to see someone lose slowly on a healthy program - that's boring) but also, it humiliates people of size. Again, if you do not see this, perhaps you don't WANT to see it and nothing I write will convince you...

One more thing you brought up ... you wrote:

"You believe that size does not matter and it is ok to be morbidly obese."

This statement is way too general. But I don't think I said this in any of my blogs. Fact remains however, that for every study which suggests a danger in being clinically obese, there is another study which suggests NO LINK between clinical obesity _alone_ and morbidity but rather other lifestyle factors instead... food choices, whether the person yo yo's the weight or stays steady and a host of things, even things like stress and anxiety.

Dr Rudy Leibel, probably one of the most respected obesity researchers, stated in a speech to the NIH that "there probably is some advantage to being of normal BMI but it is UNCLEAR whether someone forcing their weight to a lower range than their bodies want, enjoys that advantage".

Now, Pete, I have provided some sources and clarified what I have written and of course, I invite comment but if you DO comment, I hope you will do so more respectfully than your last comment as I feel insulting comments do little to enlighten folks who are reading this. Provide me with facts and cites and I will listen. Your anecdotal "I know all about the show" attitude is not really what I call unbiased observation especially since you apparently walked away with a tidy sum of money. I can understand that you do not like it when the show is criticized for being unhealthy or for exploiting fat people (although some of the Biggest Loser candidates have talked about that themselves), and while I understand your point of view, your anecdotal information does not qualify for scientific data. I hope you understand that.

Overall, I think we can discuss something, even disagreeing upon various aspects and still remain adult and civil, yes?

Biggest loser - not?

Again we return to the controversial TV show everyone hates to watch. That's because Eric Chopin, one of the winners of the "Biggest Loser" who lost the most amount of weight, appeared on the Oprah show yesterday.Oprah had invited him a few months ago to one of her "amazing weight loss shows" to tell his weight loss story. But he declined the offer, saying he couldn't get off from work.

"I lied about that" he told Oprah yesterday. The truth was Eric Chopin has regained 107 lbs of the 214 lbs he initially lost. He said he decided to reveal the truth to his fans after Oprah's courageous move of revealing her 40 lb weight gain (which she has exploited in her "O" magazine as well as the last two weeks of her show and I guess plans webcasts as well - leave it to Oprah to dis-arm the tabloids while upping the ratings of her show... no wonder she's one of the richest people in the country - she's very clever to say the least!)

How did Eric gain the weight? Well, he didn't really know - it just crept up on him, he said. Perhaps the fact that he wasn't working out 5 hours a day like he was on the "Biggest Loser" ranch, helped.

In an earlier interview which I did blog about, I said Eric looked like he had gained some and then, he told the interviewer that when he was on "The Biggest Loser" that WAS his job but once he got back into the REAL world, he didn't have the time or energy to exercise all those hours a day.

On Oprah, Eric looked ashamed of himself, the old "I did this to myself" and Oprah, now the world's most renown expert on "falling off the wagon" consoled him that 2009 would be a better year and she said it shouldn't be about the number on the scale (which is a laugh because of course, that's ALL what it's about).

But should Eric or any of the "Biggest losers" who were unable to maintain the loss really be blamed? It's quite possible that the only thing "they did to themselves" was offer themselves up to be on the show.

Perhaps everyone should take a second look at the methods used in the "Biggest Loser" show. The people do back breaking workouts for several hours a day, and they also cut the calories (they wear counters which log their steps - these are uploaded into the computer and then, they have to log their food).

Eric told Oprah that he hating working out but he was athletic in High School. Oprah has always hated working out so she commiserated there. "Does anyone LIKE working out?" she asked, grimacing and the audience laughed.

But I have often wondered if those personal trainers on the "Biggest Loser" by putting these people through such pain (in order to win the show) have turned these people AGAINST working out for life... Workouts became for them, nothing BUT pain (the latest "biggest loser", a 30 some year old, told "The Today Show" that just before she won the show, she had packed all her bags to go home because she couldn't take it any longer and her young body hurt all over). But workouts shouldn't BE pain... aerobic workouts are supposed to be pleasant and can be fun. In the normal schema, workouts are NOT for "losing weight" but for health and as an aging person, I can attest to the fact that my hubby and my workout habits HAVE kept us healthier despite some health issues we have.

Eric told Oprah that people had warned him that keeping the weight off is the hardest part. He said he had scoffed at the warnings saying "you ever lose 214 lbs in 6 months?" but added that he found out those who had warned him were right.

After mistreating his body as the show did, it's not surprising that he regained but I don't feel HE should be blamed but rather the show. And yet, people keep lining up to BE on the show and they talk about "saving their lives".

Killing their metabolisms and working out for 5 hours a day doesn't sound life saving to me. On the contrary.

In the Game show hearings (the $64,000 question show in which contestants were given the answers), in defense, the TV exec told the Congress members that he didn't see what the problem was. "People won money, contestants had fun and the audience was entertained - everyone won!" Few seemed to realize the deceit involved could become a slippery slope into shows in which really nobody won and people COULD be hurt.

Perhaps we have arrived there with shows which exploit human beings.

If the RNY is so risky, why do they keep doing it?

I recently received a very thoughtful comment by someone researching WLS and decided that since many other folks may have similar questions, I would try to address the issues this individual raised.

First, Daisy asks:

If RNY is so harmful to the organism why do doctors still continue to indicate it?

The answer here is not a simple one so bear with me.

First, those who advocate the RNY are often those who are not involved in the long term follow up of their patients (most RNY follow up is done by Emergency Rooms, hospitalists and gastroenterologists). These individuals are impressed by the early results and may not be aware of the long term results (which admittedly are hard to ferrit out due to the lack of long term studies and the unavailability, for whatever reason, of many patients after 5 or 10 years). They also may feel that even though the vitamin deficiencies which cannot be supplemented, may shorten the lives of RNY patients, that untreated obesity, may shorten their lives even more.

Many surgeons answer the longevity question (i.e. how long you live after a gastric bypass) as Dr Wittgrove of the Alvarado Clinic did in the online interviews at the time of Carnie Wilson's gastric bypass:

Question: Dr. Wittgrove, I really need to know about how this surgery will effect me when I am old (70, 80 and 90's)

Dr. Alan Wittgrove: Hopefully you will live that long..... People who are morbidly obese don't have long life spans... Ideal body weight tables were based on actuarial data.... It is commonly known that people who are morbidly obese die earlier than those who are not morbidly obese.

One study by Dr David Flum which was delivered before a group of obesity surgeons but for some reason, never published in peer reviewed journals, which carefully examined 62,000 hospital records of RNY patients, did find an alarmingly high death rate in these patients. The researchers found that 1 in 50 RNY patients die within 30 days of surgery. And another 3-9 percent (depending on age and other factors) die within the first year. But when Flum and associates compared this to a group of 2000 obese patients who had been hospitalized for other reasons, they found a slightly higher death rate in the obese patients than in the RNY and concluded that, risky as the RNY was, the risk may be higher for untreated obesity.

The problem with that conclusion, as having been pointed out by several other researchers, was that comparing the RNY patients to any critically ill patients, even slim ones, would have yielded a similar result that is, it is predictable that among critically ill patients of any weight, the death rate will be higher than among healthy fat people who are in the hospital to have WLS. (report delivered to the College of surgeons in Oct 21, 2003.[Study title: The Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Patient Survival: A Population-Based Study]

It is unknown whether obesity really shortens your life or not, although lifestyle factors i.e. amount of exercise, quality of diet, stress factors may have an effect on health and even how long you live regardless of what you weigh.

For as many epidemiological studies which are available which suggest that obesity does effect longevity, there are an equal number of epidemiological studies which suggest that obesity alone does not affect your lifespan.

And the few clinical studies we have available, suggest that lifestyle alone is what seems to affect lifespan and health regardless of what someone weighs and also that obesity alone doesn't seem to have that much effect, one way or another on lifespan or even health.

This story of what science really says about obesity is not seen in the media because, perhaps the media is more "marketing oriented".

The second reason why some surgeons continue to advocate the RNY may be because the public is demanding quick weight loss at any cost. It is true that some patients, even those who are very ill from the repercussions of the RNY, are still happy to not be fat anymore due to the societal pressures on the overweight population. It is also a fact that because of the massive healing internally after the digestive tract has been so drastically (and yes, permanently) rearranged, takes about a year and during that year, that, and also that patients find it somewhat uncomfortable to eat at all (food getting stuck, vomiting etc), often causes early post op RNY patients to lose their appetites - these end up eating very few calories a day i.e. 300-500 and some of what they eat is not absorbed. This is why some surgeons called the RNY "surgically induced anorexia" The idea of not having an appetite and the weight dropping off quickly and easily, is of course, highly attractive to folks who have struggled with diets for many years. However, those RNY patients in the 3rd and 4th year often end up on the same diets which didn't work before only the years of fasting and semi fasting have greatly lowered their metabolism.

Many people can read the informed consent information, can read the testimonies of patients who are extremely ill for life from WLS and still request WLS. I personally know of cases where family members have died and the sibs still go ahead with the surgery. This may be a simple case of human nature - what drives many who choose to use tobacco also - the idea that "if it's bad, it won't happen to me."

In this scenario, a better way to make a decision would be to consider all the possibilities and ask if this would be ok with you. That is 'reactive hypoglycemia' - would you be ok if that happened to you? etc.

People want to believe the dream that a surgery can change a fat person into a slim one. However, any surgeon will tell you that the RNY is for making very fat people, somewhat less fat because after the first or second year, most patients experience a rebound gain of 50 percent or more of what they originally lost. Keep in mind that the medical profession considers even a small weight loss as something which will lower health risks.

And the underlying reason why most folks do something about obesity remains "improving looks" although we cover our quest for looks with a thin veneer of "health".

Often the medical profession has advocated unhealthy practices, especially in a field where there is not much research. Classic was the cover of a Journal of the American Medical Association in the 1930's, which featured a photo of a group of doctors smoking cigarettes! Cigarette ads in the 1950's were still featuring medical advocacy of smoking like "more doctors recommend Camels than any other cigarette!"

Even today, many medical providers do not aggressively attack the smoking habit as they do, obesity, despite the fact that the proofs for the dangers of smoking are now, well documented and the proofs for obesity risks are not well documented at all.

Your second question:

have you ever assisted a patient who had complications due to the RNY surgery? And if yes, were these complications caused just because of the procedure itself or did the patients have some previous condition, such as diabetes or high blood pressure or high cholesterol level?

Yes, I have assisted many ill longer term patients and in most cases, their problems were strictly due to the repercussions of their weight loss surgery. Things like "Leaky gut" causing auto immune disorder, bowel obstructions and ulcers in the small bowel due from the leakage of stomach acid (the small bowel does not have a protective covering against acid from the stomach) and those vitamins like calcium which cannot be successfully supplemented resulting in maladies such as osteoporosis etc.

Problems like this are predictable because of the nature of the surgery and are not unknown in the medical profession because there is a long history with a similar surgery done to treat ulcers in the first segment of small bowel. This surgery upon which the RNY was based, is called the "Billroth II" and the mere mention of this procedure causes many medical providers to pale due to the various illnesses resulting from it, however, the surgery was considered preferable to the death which an ulcer in the small bowel would have caused.

It's a no brainer that when a major organ system is so greatly re-arranged as done in the RNY, that there will be serious repercussions from the surgery itself. Those who claim "no repercussions" are never the medical providers but rather those early term patients who are still somewhat concepting the surgery as a "magic bullet".

You further commented:

the floor for sick WLS patients... Why is it such a difficult floor? It takes me a lot to believe that it can be more difficult than a floor crowded with patients who have terminal diseases.

This is hard to understand from the outside but severely modifying such an important organ system so that it works differently can cause painful, terrible suffering. The best way you can get a feel for some of this, is to read the messages on the "gone wrong" group suggested by one of those who commented:

ossg-gone_wrong

This group is rapidly approaching a membership of 2000, many of whom have had dreadful experiences with the RNY.

Another comment of yours:

your campaign against RNY made me think that it is a totally irreversible process and those who submit themselves to it are condemned to live ill for the rest of their life, when this is not true. Complications exist in all kinds of surgeries.

First, can you see where not all surgeries are the same? For instance, the death rate in gall bladder surgery is about 1 in 7000 people - the same as one finds with the lap band.

Secondly, the RNY is irreversible and if you carefully research you will find this to be true. The only procedure they can do with a "gastric bypass gone bad" (as medical providers call it) is to reconnect the small bowel and arrange the organs in a manner similar to the VBG or stomach stapling only. It's kind of a no brainer that you cannot remove 300 staples from a stomach which has been resectioned into 2 pieces.

Third, as for living ill for the rest of their lives, this also is true. Here is a quote from a WLS surgeon who is still doing the RNY:

"By doing this surgery, you're creating a medical disease in the body. Before you expose someone to that risk, you have to be absolutely sure that you are treating an illness which is equal to or greater than the one you are creating."
(Dr Edward Livingston, bariatric surgeon in Self Magazine, 4-2001)

Note his terminology... "medical disease" etc.

it takes me a lot to believe that a doctor would recommend it if he/she was aware that it wouldn't bring any benefits in the future.

You have to realize the manner of thinking in the medical profession and that is, for the moment, not necessarily for the future, for many reasons, one of which is that if a questionable procedure is done now, it is possible that problems occurring in the future will be able to be handled by newer treatments. (and it is true that treatments are being developed daily which are changing the face of medicine).

There is a whole body of research which suggests that people never have to lose weight for health and that any type of losing weight program, even one which seeks a healthy lifestyle, poses some pretty serious risks, especially if done again and again as is the case with 95 percent of the public.

The following blog presents a summary of that research and does provide the cites:

the case against dieting

I hope this has, in part, answered some of your questions and I do invite you to research those websites I have provided.

Further research can be done at:

obesitysurgery-info.com

diet pop - not so diet after all?

Years ago, in 1973, I went to Weight Watchers and lost down to a socially acceptable weight (about 100 lbs less than I weigh now!). And I seemed to be, for the first time, "easily" keeping it off. My secret? 6-8 cans of "Diet Rite Cola" (remember that brand?) a day. Or sometimes more. And a bedtime snack of whipped carnation non fat milk (1/4 cup) sweetened with --- artificial sweetener of course!

Unfortunately while enjoying my smaller size, I found I was getting some strange symptoms in my eyes. Blurs in the field of vision. Pain in the eyeballs. And lumps in the eye lids.

I went to the eye doctor and he wasn't much help. "You have lumps in your eyelids!" he announced, being champion of the obvious.

So I reaccessed what I was doing and "a lot of diet pop" came up. Could THAT be it, I wondered. So I gave up "Diet Rite Cola", cold turkey. And I gave up my nice evening snack of artificially sweetened whipped non fat instant milk. And in a month or so, the lumps in my eyelids disappeared as did the pain in the eyeballs and the blur in the field of vision.

I also pretty well trashed my gall bladder in that dieting stint in 1973 which I found out with a shock when I tried the - then newest thing - the Atkins Diet, had a day and a half of delightful parties in my mouth like cheese quiche and then had the granddaddy of all gall bladder attacks!. Well, that's another show but a common repercussion apparently, of losing a lot of weight on a diet. In fact, in many weight loss surgery patients, they just remove the gall bladder at the time of surgery because they know it's going to go bad anyway. A common repercussion, one of many from dieting which is buried in the medical literature and never talked about in polite company.

The problem with my giving up "Diet Rite" was that without the caffeine load I was getting from the diet cola, I started to feel extreme starvation fatigue (Gina Kolata called it "Primal hunger" in her recent book, "Re-Thinking Thin") It's our body's major production of hormones to force us to eat to gain weight and feel better. Worked for me. I'd felt this kind of fatigue before, (also identified in the Ansel Keyes starvation studies of the 1940's) when I was in my early 20's trying to force my weight to a socially acceptable number and I knew there was only one way to feel better. To eat! So eat I did. I'm not a binge eater. I just ate normally but that caused a 90 lbs weight gain.

The sweetener in Diet Rite Cola was saccharine, then considered "totally safe" despite the fact that it had caused some bladder cancer in the rat studies.

In 1980, another sweetener came out. Aspartame or Nutrasweet. I investigated it, wondering if it would work better than saccharine had done for me. But when I found it could turn into formaldehyde in your body, seemed kind of a no brainer that it was more than a bit toxic. That logical thought process and my observing a member of my online community (BBS in those days) get a case of Multiple Sclerosis rendering her bedfast which "miraculously went away" when she stopped consuming Nutrasweet, were a strong argument in my book to stay away from the chemical! I decided to not consume Nutrasweet or aspartame long before the anti Aspartame folks arose on the net. And to this day, I still remain an aspartame virgin.

My huge weight gain after my first tour of Weight Watchers was my fault of course, or so I believed.

However, a recent story tells us that some of my weight gain might have been because my heavy consumption of artificial sweetener had caused changes in my brain chemistry. ouch!

In fact, they are telling us, drinking only one can of diet soda a day can cause those changes in brain chemistry which can result in not only, weight gain but a significantly higher risk of heart disease.

After 2 large studies showed that people who drink diet pop had a 30 percent greater chance of gaining weight, and a 30 percent greater chance of low HDL cholesterol and/or metabolic syndrome, two heart disease risk factors, we recently have become aware of a rat study out of Purdue which actually showed the brain chemistry changes in the rats.

Too bad for the pop moguls who had just successfully de-valued the large studies of people "well you see, people who drink diet pop tend to eat more and exercise less" they told us. They don't want us to stop buying diet pop because Americans spend $21 billion bucks on it per year.

The pop industry is trying to de-value the Purdue study but it seems to just not go away. Not only that but now ABC news pulled up other things discovered about artificial sweetener - things which seemed to have evaded the news previously. For example, one expert opined that "the acid load delivered by soda of any kind" can be damaging.

The acid load. hmmm. I remember an internet forward stating that Diet Coke was good for cleaning the toilet. I had seen it eat away the tarnish on a penny in seconds after the penny was dropped into a small glass of it. My husband was not surprised at this - "phosphoric acid is a solvent used in some shops to clean tools," he told me. Diet Coke did clean the toilet well, I found out.

And after a lot of my teeth had had the enamel worn away, I read that cola can eat through the enamel on your teeth.

Diet guru Richard Simmons announced about 10 years ago, that when he quit drinking diet soda, he lost 12 lbs without changing anything else. He was largely ignored, of course.

Now people are beginning to listen. The anti aspartame folks telling us for years, that nutrasweet is an "excitotoxin" (kills brain cells and may be a secondary cause of other ailments like Parkinsonism) or that aspartame delivers a fairly heavy load of methanol into our system (kills liver cells and can cause cirrhosis and after that, can muck up the mitochondria and more) didn't have that much affect on people.

But tell them that diet soda may make you gain weight? That they listen to. Apparently having a dead brain or dying nerve cells isn't a dealbreaker but having a fat body is? 'Nuff said. For once, fat-a-phobia may actually cause us to be healthier.

(Although, they will probably find an equally dangerous chemical to substitute, says my less optimistic side, a chemical which after those selling it tell us it's "safe", people will flock to buy it.)

Queen Size movie was a Queen size diet ad

Recently Lifetime aired a movie called "Queen Sized" about a very fat High School lady who was nominated for Homecoming queen as a joke and then, decides to run. A good summation of the plot of the movie, stars, movie trailer and short analysis can be found here.

About the only positive thing I found in the movie was the main character played by Nikki Blonsky, was really fat and actually wore somewhat youngish clothing.

But the movie was actually anti fat and perpetuating the same tired old myths about fatness over and over.

Based on a real incident which happened in 2004 in Detroit to Allie Burris, various facts about Burris were changed in order to push the anti fat agenda. Whereas Burris' Dad died of asthma, a non fat related disorder, Maggie's dad died of diabetes which is said to be fat related (it is genetically related rather than fat related but it's one of the sound bites they use to scare people into dieting). Throughout the movie, although we are reminded that it - isn't nice - to make fun of fat people, we are also reminded that Maggie should lose weight to save herself from the deadly diabetes which killed her Dad.

In the real incident, Burris got the support of the other High Schoolers and got elected to Homecoming Princess (she was supposedly elected so they could jeer while she was riding in the parade but her ride was without incident). In the movie Maggie got the support of a lot of her contemporaries who were tired of the lady who usually won, but when Maggie stood up to accept the honor, she was almost unanimously booed.

Supposedly, the audience was told she brought that upon herself when she took a TV interview and acted fat and proud. "We want the old Maggie back" said several kids to her. That is, the Maggie who hated herself and thought she was a failure and buried her sorrows in food -that's the one the High Schoolers liked, NOT the new Maggie who actually thought she could do something. Ostensibly some kids who worked in her campaign got angry at her because she didn't mention them as having a part, on TV but they helped, the movie gave us the impression, because they "felt sorry for her" and not because she had any attributes worth anything.

Everyone else in Maggie's family was Hollywood slim and the movie clearly suggested that Maggie was fat because she was out of shape (they showed her running and puffing, walking and not being able to keep up with the other kids and so forth, implying the only exercise she did was opening the fridge plus the arm exercise of putting the food in her mouth). Maggie was also fat, the film showed us, because everytime something went wrong, she ate - all of the wrong things of course. Never did so much as a veggie pass over her lips.

The usual stereotypes we all are familiar with. People are fat because they eat too much and move too little. Only like other stereotypes, these are equally erroneous. There are plenty of slim High Schoolers with binge eating disorder and plenty of fat High Schoolers who are like I was - exercising MORE than the average person (I walked EVERYWHERE I went, I swam during my study halls, I ran from class to class) and STILL only achieving a somewhat large-normal size by starvation. Society doesn't want to admit fatness is mostly genetic because then they couldn't have their fat-a-phobia in comfort. But science says that size IS genetic. The "Queen Sized" movie did not teach people that however. On the contrary.

Interestingly enough, all the high schoolers were shown as slim and perfect looking. I guess the makers of that movie hoped we wouldn't ask difficult questions like "where are all these fat kids that the obesity epidemic mongers are telling us about?" Two fat kids in a large school? Where is the epidemic and why do we have to be "worried" if only 2 out of 1000 kids is fat? Guys, you cannot have it both ways!

"Queen Sized" wasn't even that interesting to watch. It dragged in several places. I fast forwarded through the commercials but I'm told the diet industry was advertising a lot.

The end of the movie was like the rest of it. Maggie goes back to being humble and carefully finds all the candy she has hidden in her room and throws it in the garbage so the audience is consoled with the fact that she has finally decided to get with the crowd and lose weight.

If you haven't seen this movie, I don't think you've missed anything but more of the same dose of fat-a-phobia we get on a daily basis. It was just cleverly (or not so cleverly) cloaked in a different wrapper.

But it's NOT a diet!

Weight Watchers has a new ad campaign. They tell their viewers that "Diets don't work". Which is true - countless studies suggest that 95 percent of dieters regain the weight within four years of losing it. So that's great but they go on to say "Weight Watchers works". Wait a minute. Weight Watchers is a DIET and they just said "Diets don't work". And Weight Watchers, although one of the healthiest weight loss programs out there, is STILL a DIET.

My personal opinion is, although that seems a good idea, it may backfire on them because if they ADMIT that diets don't work (and everyone knows that Weight Watchers IS a diet) then, folks might get to thinking that maybe it's NOT time to re-join!

Resolutions to "lose weight" were somewhat absent from the numerous New Year's interviews and news articles. And a news article suggests that Americans are AT LEAST as interested in health as they are in thinness. Only 29 percent of those asked, admitting to dieting (but remember many dieters do not admit that a weight loss program is "dieting"). Of course, people may be going underground with their interest in slimness because it's fallen out of style to admit that you want to be slim. However, diets or weight loss programs are STILL being sold as a looks improvement - with smiling slim ladies and a few gents saying how wonderful it is to be slim, how they can buy clothing off the shelves and fit on carnival rides. The usual sound bites.

And despite the word "diet" being a no no now, Diets are going strong in 2008...

Discovery Channel's "body challenge" is one diet which has been heavily advertised. That's 8 weeks long and encourages a quick weight loss with supposedly changing one's habits (an 8 week membership at Bally's is included). But as we all know the quicker you lose the weight, the quicker it comes back. And will people REALLY change their habits in 8 weeks? Questionable.

Of course, the 55 BILLION buck a year diet industry doesn't mind repeat customers, in fact they thrive on repeat customers.

Oklahoma City is being put on a diet by their mayor who brags he wants his people to lose 1 MILLION pounds. (will they gain back 2 million lbs then?). The enthusiastic mayor of OK city has TWO domain names for the program and fancy websites with messages like how much obesity costs. Their program encourages exercise and watching what you eat. The 2600 people who have signed up already, have lost 300 lbs (they say). Nice but 2600 is but a small percentage of those who live in OK city. Perhaps not all residents are that enthusiastic about the major's challenge!

And NutraSystem has a new ad (with plenty of happy smiling slim people) and a new program called Nutrasystem advanced. You get 2 free weeks of food, food is shipped in plain boxes so your mailman doesn't know you are on a (gag) diet and the smiling slim folks in the ad tell us how much they love the food and especially the chocolate. The small print in the ad (which becomes available to those of us who have DVR's and can stop the action) tells us that those used in the ad were "renumerated" i.e. paid, and that they lost weight on the OLD program and that it isn't exactly 2 free weeks - it's more like buy 3 weeks, get on free, twice. Also says the small print, you only get the entre for $10 bucks a day. You have to buy the fruit and veggies. Seems rather pricey to me.

And then, somewhere in a quiet corner amidst all the noise of all the diet (oops NOT DIET - weight loss) groups advertising is HAES, Health at Every Size. The only program which has been suggested by CLINICAL studies to really work to help people GET HEALTHY. HAES is where you try to eat healthy and exercise a few times a week and don't fret about your weight. Because we know that DIETS DON'T WORK for most people. HAES, unlike diets, DOES work.

Problem is, I think just about EVERY American knows how to lose weight and what they SHOULD be doing for health but many choose to not do it. And maybe, that's ok too. It's nothing to feel guilty about, because for as many epidemiological studies which suggest that being obese is dangerous, there are an equal number of epidemiological studies which suggest that obesity really isn't a big factor in health, one way or another.

One of my favorite things to think about is this:

On the Titanic, destined to sink that night, how many women denied themselves desserts due to "watching their weight"? And if they had it to do over, would they have skipped that dessert?

So take a walk a few times a week, try to eat more veggies, don't fret about your weight and .... enjoy your dessert because you never know when it will be your last.

Obesity and Cancer - Food and Cancer

Actually if you read the news articles about the Report claiming to "prove without a doubt" that obesity is a serious risk factor for cancer, which I understand has been making the headline news for many days, you might get the impression that it talks about obesity alone. But the report which is available at View/Download report actually only has one chapter on obesity although mini rants on obesity and cancer are woven into the report in several other places. And what I found while perusing the actual report is that the news claims about it, far exceed the real thing - the report talks about probabilities mostly and does not provide any new information (although they take hundreds of pages for their non informative report).

According the excellent analysis article on the Junk Food Science blog, these scientists somehow avoided including the largest and one of the most respected studies done on cancer risks called the "Women's Health Initiative". It seems, the blog continues, that they left out quite a few important studies, all of which did not agree with their desired premise i.e. that obesity causes cancer.

They do admit that they are guessing why fatness might raise the risk for cancer (and they also admit that fatness LOWERS the risk for pre menopausal breast cancer). Here is the excerpt:

There are several general mechanisms through which body
fatness and abdominal fatness could plausibly influence cancer risk. For example, increasing body fatness raises the
inflammatory response, increases circulating oestrogens, and
decreases insulin sensitivity. The physiological effects of obesity are described in more detail in Chapter 8. The effects of body fatness-related hormonal changes and inflammation on cancer processes are detailed in box 2.4

In searching for box 2.4, referenced throughout the paper, I found that their big theory is that fat is chronically inflamed due to the fact that fat tissue stores macrophages. But this is a connection which has not been proven to be bad and in fact, fat people tend to have LESS cancer and when they DO get cancer, they survive chemo better than slim people. (Gaesser, BIG FAT LIES, CA, 2002 for one). Also in the pig study, it was strongly suggested that the bodyfat in a pig helped NOT only protect against infectuous disease but ALSO against cancer - the opposite of what this new report is claiming (the pig study was one which did NOT make front page news of course).

Based on studies of pigs, researchers said, that fat helps fend off illness.
Besides keeping a body warmer, fat cells, or adipocytes, produce hormonelike proteins in reaction to invading toxins, behaving much like immune cells that fight disease.
"Adipocytes can be functional and beneficial without creating obesity," said Michael Spurlock, an animal sciences professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.
Writing in the American Journal of Physiology, Spurlock and colleagues from the university's veterinary school said fat cells play a role in helping insulin regulate blood sugar levels and can aid the immune system's response to cancerous cells. (American Journal of Physiology, Jan 2004)

Stephen Milloy points out in his article debunking this study that:

scientists don’t really understand carcinogenesis very well. It’s known that the risk of cancer increases with age possibly because of the deterioration of DNA repair mechanisms and a few well-documented risk factors, such as family history of cancer, heavy smoking, and exposure to certain viruses and some exposures to radiation. Outside of those and perhaps a few other risk factors, the occurrence of cancer is largely inexplicable.

There are many of us who might have noticed that the groups which seem to get the most cancer are

1) slim people
2) dieters (i.e. I have known MANY people who lose a great deal of weight and THEN come down with cancer!)
3) smokers
4) for the female cancers - those on birth control medication (placed on the FDA list of cancer causing chemicals in 2004)

This report offers some insights on the whys and wherefores of cancer which may be, according to the American Cancer Society, as much as 85 percent LIFESTYLE related. And because of the erroneous information on obesity and the constant admonitions to "maintain a healthy weight" as determined by BMI, a scale invented in the mid 1800's which does not take bone mass, muscle or even gender into consideration and is, according to the CDC, suggesting weights which are "underweight" and thus not healthy for many people, I fear some of the good things the report has to say might be missed by all in the media's frenzied effort to sell us - yet another - diet.

Most cancer is preventable, the report tells us. Considering that in 1900 they reported 210 cases of cancer in the USA and even when I was a tot in the 1950's, cancer was a relatively rare disease, one does wonder about how much IS preventable. However the suggestions by the researchers seem over simplified and missing quite a few key factors which have been identified as carcinogenic in many other sources. Here's what they say:

Most cancer is preventable. The risk of cancers is
often influenced by inherited factors. Nevertheless,
it is generally agreed that the two main ways to
reduce the risk of cancer are achievable by most
well informed people, if they have the necessary
resources. These are not to smoke tobacco and to
avoid exposure to tobacco smoke; and to consume
healthy diets and be physically active, and to
maintain a healthy weight. Other factors, in
particular infectious agents, and also radiation,
industrial chemicals, and medication, affect the risk
of some cancers.

But making healthy food choices, a balanced diet containing fiber as well as a lot of veggies but low in saturated fat and avoiding transfat completely will likely reduce the risk of cancer as will as little as 20 minutes of walking, 4 or 5 times a week. However, the report's caution to avoid red meat again has no real foundation in science and in fact, red meat may have some micronutrients which are not found in other foods and even in other meats. Obviously if you eat nothing BUT red meat that may not be healthy but avoiding it altogether might be equally unhealthy. Red Meat is a good source of vitamin B12, the lack thereof which can cause neuropathy and more.

Also my bet is that the scientists totally ignored that some 94 worldwide studies suggested a strong link between the artificial sweetener, "aspartame" or "nutrasweet" and cancer especially leukemia and brain cancer!

As for maintaining a healthy weight, science STILL has not determined what IS a healthy weight for most people (but the CDC noted that people with BMIs in the overweight range seem to live longer than those in the "normal" (BMI 22-25) range.

In 2005, the CDC reassessed their data and found that 112,000 people (not 300,000 people) had died from obesity related diseases however, they also added that since people with BMIs in the overweight zone (BMI 25-29) live longer than those in the "normal ranges", one had to subtract 86,000 from the 112,000 and that leaves 26,000 people who die from obesity related disease... less than who die from gunshot accidents!

Report on CDC and healthy weights and obesity deaths


It should also be noted that for 95 percent of the public, maintaining a "healthy weight" (according to BMI) means yo yo dieting or weight cycling which has been STRONGLY suggested in many clinical studies to not only RAISE the risk for most illness but also raise the risk for heart disease as well.

I haven't heard the news stories (I don't listen to the news - because it's so filled with lies) but I would bet that they DON'T AT ALL, emphasize the suggestion in the report to exercise cardio 30 minutes daily, which is a very good idea for all of us regardless of weight.

My bets are that this study was supposed to be the "piéce de resistance" - the study no one could argue with but since there are already two fine articles debunking the study's claims, perhaps it may fall short of its expectations and merely provide news headlines perhaps scaring a few fat people into Weight Loss Surgery.

Bottom line, this report provides nothing new, and a lot of wrong information about obesity AND cancer yet leaves out some of the most IMPORTANT information about carcinogens in the environment and in the foods we consume. In short it is just the usual rant against obesity cloaked in a different format and published for one reason alone... to sell diets and news papers. ho hum....

Most kids dieting or calorie restricting

A survey of 500 teens in the UK revealed that 33 percent of girls between the ages of 13-18 years old are dieting however, 50 percent of the girls admitted to eating less than 1200 calories a day (under the excuse of "eating healthy"). The suggested calorie intake for a growing teen is at least 2000 calories and 3000 calories for boys (some of whom were eating 800 calories or less per day). (see www.mypyramid.gov )

Many adults are ignoring the need to look like a concentration camp victim but teens are taking these messages seriously and confusing being super slim with healthy. The same survey found that less than 25 percent of the teens were eating the proper amount of vegetables - most were eating less than 2 portions a day of veggies.

Other surveys have found that more teens are starting smoking today than in the 1960's before all the dangers of cigarette smoking were known. Most teens start smoking in an attempt to control their weight. But those same kids exercise very little when at least 60 minutes of cardio daily is recommended for children to stay healthy. One little boy on TV, a participant in one of those health - lose weight shows, told the nutritionist that he doesn't have to eat well and exercise because he's slim. This is the common misconception that TV is giving our kids.

All this dieting and calorie restriction may be one reason why autoimmune disorder is becoming that "epidemic" that obesity never was. Or why whole schools of vaccinated kids are coming down with whooping cough. Dieting is a known challenge to the immune system even in adults - imagine how it might devastate the immune system of a growing kid.

I took a 10 year old shopping for clothing this weekend and she was painfully aware of her size.... and wanted to squeeze into a smaller size which didn't fit her just to avoid the larger size. She has a large frame and is of endomorphic bodytype but her size in the 1950's when I was in elementary school would have been considered "normal". Today in our efforts to make our kids boney, her size is larger than average.

Worried parents, concerned at all the TV messages about "widespread obesity in children" are, it seems, ending up giving their children grief if they are even slightly larger than very slim. One young girl who is a bit chunky told me that her slim sister is allowed to eat candy but she is not allowed. That same young girl told me that she skips lunch most days in school because she "doesn't like the food".

But as one RN told me, only 1 in 5 children is overweight or obese. That's 20 percent of kids who are overweight or obese which means 80 percent of children are NOT overweight or obese (and many that I see in school are painfully slim) and that is even by the very narrow measuring of the BMI scale which does not take bone mass or muscle mass or gender into consideration. Since when is 20 percent an "epidemic"?

We know from the experience of the very obese adults that many of them GOT that way from ruining their metabolisms as kids dieting...

So when do we stop punishing our kids for being healthy?

Obese children - what is abuse?

If we would listen to the media, we would put our kids on a diet, at the first sign of any fat we see. Unfortunately, our medical providers might agree with dieting our kids and look smilingly upon the parents for doing this. Weight Watchers has special programs where a kid can attend meetings for free with a member parent and get the same treatment which would include weekly weigh-ins and sometimes includes fat phobic advice.

How sad that today so many parents regard healthy kids with a bit of fat on their bodies (or even a lot of fat on their bodies) as our forefathers regarded lepers or severely disabled.

I am reminded of a comment made by Jerry Lewis in trying to raise more money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association at the 11th hour of the telethon.

"Would you like to be saddled with a crippled child?" he asked his audience by way of telling them if not, they should give more money. I wonder if today's parents would ask "would you like to be saddled with a fat child?"

And of course, the ultimate we are seeing more and more often is weight loss surgery for kids at a time when they NEED all their vitamins and nutrients. Sometimes kids get a lap band which at least allows normal digestion but also, sometimes kids are given gastric bypass which causes a lifelong illness of their digestive system.

One doctor opined that these surgeries may have an impact on children's health in adulthood. Understatement of the year.

One news interviewer asked a young person who had had a Lap band placed, if she was exercising now and the parents said she was joined up with a gym but when the parents were asked if she had exercised before she got the lap band, they both said "well... no"

Often I have seen that parents and doctors do NOT seem to be emphasizing healthy food choices for kids, only LESS Food and to be slim. I have two teenage grandkids who began smoking to control their weight. Most people DO begin smoking for that reason.

Having sat on the phone with a 48 year old woman who got weight loss surgery in her early 20's, mostly because of parental pressure and having her, now, ill in bed from the repercussions, weep bitterly and tell me how her mother didn't love her because she was fat, I think the physical repercussions of weight loss surgery, liposuction and dieting for any young girl, are nothing compared to the psychological trauma she may face later on.

And as the Swedish Obesity Study has shown us, weight loss surgery patients after 10 years, had only kept off an average of 16 percent of their original body weight.

We should really question this business of dieting our overweight kids - is it a type of abuse where the parents, albeit well meaning, might induce physical and psychological trauma for life? This might well end up in the wasting of a life and all because of a bit of extra bodyfat. A girl who is not using her talents because she is so busy with the hard work of dealing with stomach surgery to maintain a weight that is acceptable to a society which values not much more in a woman than the way she looks.

Read this and weep, for our children are suffering.... Will the insanity ever stop?

NOTE: for an update of Brooke Bates, please read blog of June 16, 2008.

How the Biggest Loser lost 214 lbs

Erik Chopin, 36 years old and winner of the "The biggest loser", revealed in an interview on Fox news how he lost 214 lbs. This was in response to the story on how the cold virus might cause obesity.

"So did a virus cause YOUR obesity?," asked Neil Cavuto
"Well, I don't know," said Erik, "but that would be nice if they'd make a vaccine for obesity - would have saved me a whole lot of work!"

"It's exercise and cutting the calories", Erik said, in answer to how he lost the weight, "Anyone can do it!"

Well, not exactly. When asked HOW MUCH exercise he did, Erik admitted that he did 4 or 5 hours of cardio exercise daily. "It was pretty intense," he admitted, " Basically, while I was on the show, it was my job!"

He apparently continued this killer workout program for a couple of months after he returned home but now has to go to work in a regular job - probably because of something silly like the need to have money to live. So he has geared down his program, he told the reporter... he only does 1 hour of running a day.

And from the tape we watched, he has definitely gained back some weight, so I guess his running one hour a day didn't keep off all the weight as the reporter said it had... The collage (above) shows Erik how he looked after he lost 214 lbs and how he looked a few days ago (in the black shirt) as he appeared on Neil Cavuto show.

One thing which strikes me about all of this. How come when people tell us fat folks "all you have to do is slightly cut the calories and walk for 20 minutes a day and the weight will come off", why did Erik Chopin have to work out 4 and 5 HOURS a day (and cut the calories) for HIS weight to come off?

So anyway, there you have it. Just work out 4 and 5 hours a day and if you are 36 years old, YOU TOO, can look like Erik Chopin DID after his stint on the Biggest Loser. What? Don't have the time? Have to work and do other things besides exercise? Older than 36 years old? Details details.... :)

Sue