Wed, Aug-07-19, 07:57
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 4,044
|
|
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
|
|
Interesting study.
Quote:
|
Professor Tan commented: "Although the weight loss was smaller, using the GOP infusion would be preferable as it has fewer side effects than bariatric surgery. This result shows that it is possible to obtain some of the benefits of a gastric bypass operation without undergoing the surgery itself. If further trials are successful, in future we could potentially give this type of treatment to many more patients."
|
Certainly GOP infusion would have fewer side effects than bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery is a brute-force approach that causes trauma to the body and metabolism, and the reasonable assumption that the high rate of GOP in those patients after surgery is a response to the trauma.
So, my question: why infuse patients with something that is a response to trauma when better results were achieved in the trial for those on a "low calorie" protocol? I'm not going to quibble over what constitutes "low calorie," and I don't believe that cutting calories is the only answer to weight loss; however, the results prove that simple lifestyle changes enabling patients to avoid the trauma of surgery or even avoid "trauma mimicking" infusions without surgery is the preferable solution that isn't being recognized here. People are always looking for the "easy button" enabling a continued pursuit of the very lifestyle habits that got them into health trouble in the first place. While this study is informative, the article ignores the group with the most important outcome.
Final thought: I see a time when we look back at bariatric surgery with horror when it's considered to be in the same category as shock treatment, lobotomies, and leeches. We can certainly do better than this with our fellow humans.
|