Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[GreyICE]

Oh wow, Coito, way to post a woo-woo site. There is more equivocation in that page than anyone knows what to do with. Lets go point by point:

1) Of course high protein diets do not have better long term weight loss, because they're not about weight loss. The goal is to transition body fat into muscle. Of course they could mean low-carb diets, which work at least as well as any other dietary method. So their panic seems a tad overwrought.

2) Actually fatty foods are not necessarily fattening because there is nothing wrong with non-saturated fat. Your cell walls are made out of lipids. Lipids are, survey says... fat. Not making new cells is cool and all, until you have to heal a wound. Several essential vitamins are only soluable in fat. Polyunsaturated fats and monounsaturated fats have a variety of health benefits, and should be consumed regularly. Of course the article seems lost in ambiguity. Do we consider saturated and trans the same as unsaturated? For this? Yes. Isn't it interesting the entire argument here never once mentions science? And instead is all correlation fallacies?

3) Ah, so all Cholesterol is created equal? Of course. Not. LDL cholesterol, the second smallest type, is the culprit. What creates it? Let me just quote Wikipedia here:

Insulin induces HMG-CoA reductase activity, whereas glucagon downregulates it.[13] While glucagon production is stimulated by dietary protein ingestion, insulin production is stimulated by dietary carbohydrate. The rise of insulin is, in general, determined by the digestion of carbohydrates into glucose and subsequent increase in serum glucose levels. In non-diabetics, glucagon levels are very low when insulin levels are high; however, those who have become diabetic no longer suppress glucagon output after eating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDL_cholesterol

So, high protein diets? Less LDL cholesterol. High carb diets? More. Keep riding the carb train!

4) You know, it's been a long time since I've seen this one. Okay, no, I lie, Ann Coulter still writes. But the straight up balls. To post a citation. To cite a paper. And then just to lie about what it says. It's amazing.
Reference 32:

32. Holt SHA, Brand Miller JC, Petocz P. An insulin index of foods; the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:1264-76.

Hmm. Abstract says... http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.short

Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r = -0.27, NS, n = 36) and protein (r = -0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related.

As I said, balls. Big brass ones.

5) Ah, and we're back to general "correlation = causation." Fail.

So what prompted this failure? What is this physicians group? Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine?

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet, preventive medicine, and alternatives to animal research, and encourages higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians ... e_Medicine

Woo woo.

Skepticism Coito. Learn to use it.

[maiforpeace]

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh wow, Coito, way to post a woo-woo site.

Summary of findings of peer reviewed articles published in things like the "Journal of the American Medical Assocation." Woo woo site. LOL - but, some guy hawking a book telling you about the conspiracy to make you fat and the information "They" don't want you to know....that's what we're supposed to swallow.

There is more equivocation in that page than anyone knows what to do with.

You'll have to give examples of "equivocation" - so let's see what yours are...

Lets go point by point:

1) Of course high protein diets do not have better long term weight loss, because they're not about weight loss. The goal is to transition body fat into muscle. Of course they could mean low-carb diets, which work at least as well as any other dietary method. So their panic seems a tad overwrought.

The protein diets like Atkins are sold as weight loss plans. Moreover, eating protein in and of itself doesn't make you gain muscle. Lay on your ass all day and eat raw steaks and drink egg whites - you won't gain muscle. You have to break down the muscle and have your body rebuild.

2) Actually fatty foods are not necessarily fattening because there is nothing wrong with non-saturated fat.
Your cell walls are made out of lipids. Lipids are, survey says... fat. Not making new cells is cool and all, until you have to heal a wound. Several essential vitamins are only soluable in fat. Polyunsaturated fats and monounsaturated fats have a variety of health benefits, and should be consumed regularly. Of course the article seems lost in ambiguity. Do we consider saturated and trans the same as unsaturated? For this? Yes. Isn't it interesting the entire argument here never once mentions science? And instead is all correlation fallacies?

Where did I or the material I quoted say that "fatty foods are necessarily fattening." Your body needs fat. I even said that a decent diet usually has about 20% fat. Why are you arguing something never raised? - and dude - I'm the only one pointing to and citing any actual science that's been done on the topic.

3) Ah, so all Cholesterol is created equal? Of course. Not. LDL cholesterol, the second smallest type, is the culprit. What creates it? Let me just quote Wikipedia here:

Insulin induces HMG-CoA reductase activity, whereas glucagon downregulates it.[13] While glucagon production is stimulated by dietary protein ingestion, insulin production is stimulated by dietary carbohydrate. The rise of insulin is, in general, determined by the digestion of carbohydrates into glucose and subsequent increase in serum glucose levels. In non-diabetics, glucagon levels are very low when insulin levels are high; however, those who have become diabetic no longer suppress glucagon output after eating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDL_cholesterol

Where did anyone say "all cholesterol is created equal?" I'd love for you to point it out. And, I love how you say my references to peer reviewed studies and journal articles, in actual scientific publications is "woo" - but the only thing you cite to is Wikipedia. Anyway - nobody said "all cholesteral is created equal" - so - whatever - you're arguing with someone else, I guess.

So, high protein diets? Less LDL cholesterol. High carb diets? More. Keep riding the carb train!

Carb train? I've suggested that a reasonable diet to promote weight loss consists of reducing calories sufficiently to create a caloric deficit, but not too much such that a person is not receiving sufficient daily calories. Beyond that, I have also suggested eating healthy foods including proteins, carbohydrates and fats in reasonable proportions. Around 50-30-20 percentages -- and not a bad idea to up the protein somewhat from that if one is on a fat loss diet or is working out at the gym.

4) You know, it's been a long time since I've seen this one. Okay, no, I lie, Ann Coulter still writes. But the straight up balls. To post a citation. To cite a paper. And then just to lie about what it says. It's amazing.
Reference 32:

32. Holt SHA, Brand Miller JC, Petocz P. An insulin index of foods; the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:1264-76.

Hmm. Abstract says... http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.short

Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r = -0.27, NS, n = 36) and protein (r = -0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related.

As I said, balls. Big brass ones.

I didn't misrepresent what it said. Go back and reread. Maybe you can just calm down and discuss the issue without going bat shit crazy for once.

5) Ah, and we're back to general "correlation = causation." Fail.

What are you even alleging? Nobody is saying correlation necessarily equals causation. However, correlation is quite often evidence of causation - that's how they figured out cigarettes cause cancer - they did lots of studies and found significant correlation between people getting cancer and smoking. So, maybe go beyond platitudes and understand what you're talking about before you flap your gums.

So what prompted this failure? What is this physicians group? Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine?

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet, preventive medicine, and alternatives to animal research, and encourages higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians ... e_Medicine

Woo woo.

Skepticism Coito. Learn to use it.

I do - that's why I don't buy idiotic conspiracy theories about foods "They" are trying to get us to eat and pretending that "all we have to do is just stop eating carbohydrates" - as if that's the answer to obesity. You link to your favorite "peer reviewed" source - Wikipedia - and claim that the PCRM is "woo woo?" Why? Why are they woo woo? Wikipedia doesn't say they're woo woo? So, they advocate a "vegan diet?" How does that make the evidence "woo?"

You have an issue with this?

A review of 107 research studies on various low-carbohydrate, high-protein weight-loss diets concluded that weight loss on these diets is not due to any special effect of restricting carbohydrate; rather, weight loss depended on the extent to which the dieters’ caloric intake fell and how long they continued with their regimens. Bravata DM, Sanders L, Huang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:1837-1850.

Journal of American Medical Association to you is "woo woo" -- is it, now? Wikipedia - awesome site, always reliable in your book. A peer reviewed study published in JAMA concerning a review of 107 research studies -- that's "woo" - in your book. Just making sure everyone understands you correctly.

[GreyICE]

Coito adds nothing valuable to the discussion except "Well that's not so because I think it's not so!"

Why the fuck would I care what you think? Whine about Wiki? They link to the science, follow it back. It's a damn sight better than your garbage link, as it doesn't appear to be fucking lying.

Not all fats are the same. Not all cholesterol is the same. When you write that fat and cholesterol contribute to heart disease, you're equivocating. Cholesterol in your blood stream and cholestol in your stomach are two different things. LDL cholesterol in the blood stream is caused by high insulin levels, in turn caused by high carb intake.

Maybe, just maybe, it's fucking annoying when a dumb fuck posts garbage then whines that you're "batshit crazy" because you actually care what real scientists say in peer reviewed papers, not what a bunch of PETA-funded vegans say?

Now go do some fucking research, nitwit.

[Warren Dew]

Let's look at real science and not pop culture booksellers trying to tell you about a secret "They" don't want you to know about.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, since looking at the actual data is what I've been trying to get you to do all along. But let's look at what the science actually says, rather than at paraphrases based on wishful thinking.

There are plenty of health problems associated with protein only diets. A review on the safety of low-carbohydrate diets notes that Atkins-type diets are at a greater risk for being nutritionally inadequate and raise the issue of potential long-term health effects. Crowe TC. Safety of low-carbohydrate diets. Obesity reviews. 2005;6:235–245.

What the study actually says: "Low-carbohydrate diets are likely effective and not harmful in the short term and may have therapeutic benefits for weight-related chronic diseases although weight loss on such a program should be undertaken under medical supervision." (all emphasis mine)

"Protein only" diets are, of course, irrelevant to this discussion, as I pointed out before.

In a one-year clinical trial reported in Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, researchers randomly assigned 160 overweight individuals to one of four popular diets. Participants assigned to the Atkins diet lost 2.1 kilograms, while Weight Watchers dieters lost 3.0 kilograms, Zone dieters lost 3.2 kilograms, and dieters following the Ornish program lost 3.3 kilograms. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293:43-53.

What the study actually says: "Amount of weight loss was associated with self-reported dietary adherence level (r = 0.60; P<.001) but not with diet type (r = 0.07; P = .40)." In other words, the differences between the diets were in the statistical grass, probably because they didn't have enough people. Granted that this study wasn't enough to show the superiority of low carb diets - but more on that later.

A review of 107 research studies on various low-carbohydrate, high-protein weight-loss diets concluded that weight loss on these diets is not due to any special effect of restricting carbohydrate; rather, weight loss depended on the extent to which the dieters’ caloric intake fell and how long they continued with their regimens. Bravata DM, Sanders L, Huang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:1837-1850.

What the study actually says: "There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates." In other words, back in 2003, there hadn't been enough work done on low carb diets to draw any conclusions.

Now, let's take a look at a more recent study with more participants: Gardner, et. al., "Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women", Journal of the American Medical Association, 2007. It was a "Twelve-month randomized trial ... among 311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic, premenopausal women."

"Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). Mean 12-month weight loss was as follows: Atkins, −4.7 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], −6.3 to −3.1 kg), Zone, −1.6 kg (95% CI, −2.8 to −0.4 kg), LEARN, −2.6 kg (−3.8 to −1.3 kg), and Ornish, −2.2 kg (−3.6 to −0.8 kg). Weight loss was not statistically different among the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish groups. At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.... Total energy intake was not different among diet groups at baseline or any subsequent time point (P>.40 for all) (Table 2)."

In other words, the women on low carb Atkins 2-3 times more weight, despite not eating less than the other groups.

Now, it's still possible that there were differences in caloric intake that were too small or too random to be statistically visible. It's still barely possible that low carb diets really do work by causing people to eat less. But does that really matter? If the way to get people to eat less is to tell them, "eat all you want just don't eat carbs", and that's more successful than telling them "eat less", then we should be telling them the former, not the latter.

Of course, based on the available evidence, low carb diets probably do have benefits with respect to weight loss beyond just caloric restriction. All the more reason to recommend low carb, rather than low calories.

[Warren Dew]

Oh wow, Coito, way to post a woo-woo site.

Summary of findings of peer reviewed articles published in things like the "Journal of the American Medical Assocation." Woo woo site.

When the cited articles say "carbs are more insulinogenic than protein", and the site says "protein is more insulinogenic than carbs", yes, it's a woo woo site.

[Warren Dew]

The protein diets like Atkins are sold as weight loss plans.

Atkins is not a "protein diet". In fact, it recommends unlimited amounts of foods like whipped cream and butter, which are rather low in protein. It is a low carb, high fat diet.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito adds nothing valuable to the discussion except "Well that's not so because I think it's not so!"

Except that I back up my assertions with evidence. You just talk out your ass.

Why the fuck would I care what you think? Whine about Wiki? They link to the science, follow it back. It's a damn sight better than your garbage link, as it doesn't appear to be fucking lying.

I don't know. Why do you care what I think? You fly off the handle at everything, dude - as if someone not agreeing with you is reason for you to get upset. If you're that unsure of your views, then maybe you ought to learn something before spouting off. I cited you science from JAMA - you called it "woo". You cited Wikipedia. Enough said.

Not all fats are the same.

Nobody said they were. Not me, that's for sure. So who the fuck are you arguing with?

Not all cholesterol is the same.

Nobody said they were. Not me, that's for sure. So who the fuck are you arguing with? Why not respond to that person and stop spewing nonsense in response to me?

When you write that fat and cholesterol contribute to heart disease, you're equivocating.

Bullshit. Look up "equivocating" in the dictionary.

Cholesterol in your blood stream and cholestol in your stomach are two different things. LDL cholesterol in the blood stream is caused by high insulin levels, in turn caused by high carb intake.

Of course - but that doesn't change the fact that fat and cholesterol do contribute to heart disease. What are you even on about?

Maybe, just maybe, it's fucking annoying when a dumb fuck posts garbage then whines that you're "batshit crazy" because you actually care what real scientists say in peer reviewed papers, not what a bunch of PETA-funded vegans say?

Now go do some fucking research, nitwit.

What an amazing load of crap. You don't even know what you're arguing about. You invent things that you say I said, mischaracterize what was actually posted, and outright lie, and then you have the nerve to call someone else a "nitwit." You're not just wrong, man - you're NOT EVEN wrong.

[maiforpeace]

GreyICE and CES - you both need to tone it down. This is an informal warning to both of you to play nice.

[Coito ergo sum]

GreyICE and CES - you both need to tone it down. This is an informal warning to both of you to play nice.

Umm....what's my informal warning for?

He clearly committed a "personal attack" -- not sure what I did, but use curse words (not directed at him, though).

For me to be warned on this is really nuts.

[maiforpeace]

Except that I back up my assertions with evidence. You just talk out your ass.

Nobody said they were. Not me, that's for sure. So who the fuck are you arguing with?

Would you characterize that as playing nice?

EDIT:

I said nothing about personal attacks now, did I? As for GreyICE and his personal attack, that is still up for discussion among the moderator team. Take responsibility for yourself and your own behavior - you not playing nice isn't inconsequential simply because you think GreyICE's behavior is worse than yours.

[Coito ergo sum]

Except that I back up my assertions with evidence. You just talk out your ass.

Nobody said they were. Not me, that's for sure. So who the fuck are you arguing with?

Would you characterize that as playing nice?

EDIT:

I said nothing about personal attacks now, did I? As for GreyICE and his personal attack, that is still up for discussion among the moderator team. Take responsibility for yourself and your own behavior - you not playing nice isn't inconsequential simply because you think GreyICE's behavior is worse than yours.

Compared to the stuff said all time without any such warning, yes - certainly nothing warranting an "informal warning." I'd love to see that consistently applied.

No - you didn't say anything about personal attacks - and that's precisely why I mentioned it. GreyICE attacked me personally. I did not respond in kind, and I attacked his arguments and how he presents them only - yes - I added expletives - after he personally attacked me.

But - o.k. - nobody is allowed to say "talking out your ass" and "who the fuck are you arguing with?" Right? Or, is there a more nuanced rule I'm missing. Responsibility for my own behavior indeed - giving me a warning in this instance is selective enforcement.

[charlou]

Compared to the stuff said all time without any such warning, yes - certainly nothing warranting an "informal warning." I'd love to see that consistently applied.

Pretty sure Mai meant informal reminder. No-one's being warned of imminent suspension in this instance (although that is being discussed among the staff, as Mai said), which is what our warnings amount to.

Our reminder/warning/suspension policy: Breaching the above guidelines will lead to staff enforcing a reminder ----> warning ----> suspension of increasing duration (24 hours and upwards, but no longer than six months) process of consequences. The initial choice in this series will depend on the severity of the breach and will be decided upon by staff discussion.
Please note:
Reminders are simply informal reminders of the rules.
Warnings are issued to members in the form of a warning of imminent suspension if the member continues their behaviour. An example might be, "Please stop doing that or you will be suspended for 24 hours". Board warnings (using the forum software) are never used as part of our reminder > warning > suspension policy. They are only ever issued in jest... mostly for bad puns or other fucking about.
Suspensions are regarded as a means of allowing members who have breached the forum rules time to cool off and reflect - as well as removing them temporarily from the source of discord (i.e. the forum). Members should be aware that this is not a system whereby warnings accrued will lead to a ban.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449

Any member can informally remind other members of our guidelines, by the way.

[mistermack]

I honestly can't see why people subscribe to these diet theories like atkins and low carb etc etc.
It's perfectly clear that if you want to lose weight you have to reduce calorie intake.
Coito posts as if it's some wisdom he is bestowing on the world, that it's something people don't know.
This is miles from the truth. The vast majority of people with a weight problem know this perfectly well. And the vast majority know exactly how to lose weight. They have done it successfully many times! It is NOT a lack of understanding, knowledge, or motivation that is the problem.

My brother-in-law's sister went up to an enormouse size, a genuine 400 pounds, and was hugely obese for about twenty years.
She lost the lot, an incredible feat for someone with such a big problem. She went right down to about 170 pounds, and kept it that way for quite a while.

I didn't see her for a while, and the last I heard, she had put it ALL back on. Unbelieveable but true.
She knows exactly how to lose weight, she's proved she can do it, she's experienced the benefits of it, and yet still put it back on.
In her case it's not lack of knowledge, or lack of understanding, or lack of the right faddy diet, or lack of motivation.
It's classic addictive behaviour.

[Coito ergo sum]

I honestly can't see why people subscribe to these diet theories like atkins and low carb etc etc.
It's perfectly clear that if you want to lose weight you have to reduce calorie intake.
Coito posts as if it's some wisdom he is bestowing on the world, that it's something people don't know.

Actually, no - I am posting in utter amazement at the amount of controversy the statement -- if you want to lose weight you have to eat less than goes out - makes. People take issue with me vehemently and vociferously, to the point of attacking me personally and accusing me of subscribing to "woo"....

This is miles from the truth. The vast majority of people with a weight problem know this perfectly well. And the vast majority know exactly how to lose weight. They have done it successfully many times! It is NOT a lack of understanding, knowledge, or motivation that is the problem.

My brother-in-law's sister went up to an enormouse size, a genuine 400 pounds, and was hugely obese for about twenty years.
She lost the lot, an incredible feat for someone with such a big problem. She went right down to about 170 pounds, and kept it that way for quite a while.

I didn't see her for a while, and the last I heard, she had put it ALL back on. Unbelieveable but true.
She knows exactly how to lose weight, she's proved she can do it, she's experienced the benefits of it, and yet still put it back on.
In her case it's not lack of knowledge, or lack of understanding, or lack of the right faddy diet, or lack of motivation.
It's classic addictive behaviour.

Sure - someone who weighs 400 pounds is certainly quite extreme and may well be behaviorally addicted, or compulsive/obsessive, etc. She may be suffering from depression, anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders that cause her to eat more or two much. I won't pretend to know what her psychology is. Only she and her psychiatric professional would know that. I've not denied that addictive behavior can be the cause of people eating too much. It's not always the cause, though, and it's not even the cause most of the time. Most overweight people aren't gaining and losing 230 pounds. That's huge - 400 pounds is morbidly obese and is not what the typical overweight person faces. About 25% of the American public is "obese" -- only a fraction of those are "morbidly obese" and the rest of the 65% of overweight Americans don't have the same problems someone who gains and loses 230 pounds at a clip faces.