[Villages PL]

During this past year or so, I have noticed 3 diet related studies reported by MCCLATCHY News. What they all have in common is: 1) They were all conducted in foreign countries 2) The conclusions were all discouraging and 3) They were all by MCCLATCHY.

The headline of the latest one of Oct. 28, 2011: Hormones feed hunger after weight loss, researchers say.

The study was conducted by the University of Melbourne's Department of Medicine, in Australia. After the study was completed, the lead researcher concluded that a combination of medications would need to be developed. That's because 80 percent of obese subjects regained the weight they lost, due to a number of bodily hormones that made them hungry.

Do you see, as I do, a potential for bias in this study? Would a department of medicine ever design a study to prove that no medication is needed? (Especially if the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company, which quite likely it was.)

Are we being played for fools? There were 3 stories this year (by MCCLATCHY) whereby the average person would likely conclude: 1) It's hopeless to try to lose a lot of weight and keep it off and (2 Don't try to be healthy because your health and longevity is genetically predetermined.

What do you make of it? For more information you can type the heading into a search engine.

Note: I am not against drug companies, I own stock in a drug company.

[Mikeod]

I never trust a single study's results to be an absolute. When subsequent studies confirm the original's results, then I will place some credence in the original'conclusions. I only consider the result of a single study to be a suggestion. The problem is that the news media is fond of taking the results of a study and publishing them as the final answer. Different methodologies, different study groups, and different protocols can lead to different results when investigating the same question.

Another problem is that we are again seeing instances where results are tainted or manipulated, yet conclusions are drawn and published.

And, yes, follow the money when appraising the results.

[graciegirl]

Who the heck is McClatchy news services? They can't afford the AP wire?

[blueash]

So many skeptics. You can read the summary at the New England Journal of Medicine website (nejm.org). The money for this study was provided by:


Supported by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (508920), a scholarship from the Endocrine Society of Australia, a Shields Research Scholarship from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (to Dr. Sumithran), and funding from the Sir Edward Dunlop Medical Research Foundation (to Dr. Proietto).


The NEJM makes available the disclosure form for all the authors of the study where they must list any potential conflict or association with drug companies:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.105...isclosures.pdf

[graciegirl]

Thank you Blueash. New England Journal of Medicine will do nicely and so will the funders.

Always an intelligent and well informed voice.

Still wondering about McClatchy

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

So many skeptics. You can read the summary at the New England Journal of Medicine website (nejm.org). The money for this study was provided by:


Supported by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (508920), a scholarship from the Endocrine Society of Australia, a Shields Research Scholarship from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (to Dr. Sumithran), and funding from the Sir Edward Dunlop Medical Research Foundation (to Dr. Proietto).


The NEJM makes available the disclosure form for all the authors of the study where they must list any potential conflict or association with drug companies:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.105...isclosures.pdf

Sorry. forgot to quote you so here is a bump

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by blueash

So many skeptics. You can read the summary at the New England Journal of Medicine website (nejm.org). The money for this study was provided by:


Supported by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (508920), a scholarship from the Endocrine Society of Australia, a Shields Research Scholarship from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (to Dr. Sumithran), and funding from the Sir Edward Dunlop Medical Research Foundation (to Dr. Proietto).


The NEJM makes available the disclosure form for all the authors of the study where they must list any potential conflict or association with drug companies:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.105...isclosures.pdf

Not a skeptic. I've just seen too many studies' conclusions refuted by subsequent studies. I need to see confirming studies before accepting the result of a single study. A case in point is the cell phone danger. Some studies say it is dangerous, avoid using the cell phone at the ear for extended periods of time. Other studies say it is safe to do so. Which to believe? Follow the money to see where bias may exist, and look at the science and methods used as well as the population selection and controls.

I also cast a jaundiced eye on news reports of study conclusions. They (the media) have a habit of rewording an author's conclusions from "suggest" to "indicate". A big difference.

I did not intend to cast doubt on the study in question, but more a general wariness of news media reports on studies and general concerns on funding sources.

[HelenLCSW]

Originally Posted by mikeod

Not a skeptic. I've just seen too many studies' conclusions refuted by subsequent studies. I need to see confirming studies before accepting the result of a single study. A case in point is the cell phone danger. Some studies say it is dangerous, avoid using the cell phone at the ear for extended periods of time. Other studies say it is safe to do so. Which to believe? Follow the money to see where bias may exist, and look at the science and methods used as well as the population selection and controls.

I also cast a jaundiced eye on news reports of study conclusions. They (the media) have a habit of rewording an author's conclusions from "suggest" to "indicate". A big difference.

I did not intend to cast doubt on the study in question, but more a general wariness of news media reports on studies and general concerns on funding sources.

I am a mental health provider (psychotherapist). Don't let "research council", etc. fool you --these research groups often get large donations from pharmaceutical companies. Everyone should have a pharmaceutical company in their investment portfolio --they are very profitable. I am not anti-pharmaceuticals but in some areas these companies are scamming us and we need to be more aware.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

During this past year or so, I have noticed 3 diet related studies reported by MCCLATCHY News. What they all have in common is: 1) They were all conducted in foreign countries 2) The conclusions were all discouraging and 3) They were all by MCCLATCHY.

The headline of the latest one of Oct. 28, 2011: Hormones feed hunger after weight loss, researchers say.

The study was conducted by the University of Melbourne's Department of Medicine, in Australia. After the study was completed, the lead researcher concluded that a combination of medications would need to be developed. That's because 80 percent of obese subjects regained the weight they lost, due to a number of bodily hormones that made them hungry.

Do you see, as I do, a potential for bias in this study? Would a department of medicine ever design a study to prove that no medication is needed? (Especially if the study is funded by a pharmaceutical
company, which quite likely it was.)

Are we being played for fools? There were 3 stories this year (by MCCLATCHYwhereby the average person would likely conclude: 1) It's hopeless to try to
lose a lot of weight and keep it off and (2 Don't try to be healthy because your
health and longevity is genetically predetermined.

Dr.Oz loves this stuff. I'm sure he'll use it to promote his Flavour-of-the-day solution. There's a ton
of money to be made from wrinkles who want to stay slim and healthy, and find a magic solution. Most people find the "eat less and exercise more" mantra to be too boring! I'm sure that all the
drug companies are frantically trying to find another appetite suppressant pill, similar to Fen-Fen in the 1980s, which was approved and then removed from the market.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Who the heck is McClatchy news services? They can't afford the AP wire?

I subscribe to the Daily Sun here in The Villages and almost daily there are news articles by McClatchy.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by blueash

You can read the summary at the New England Journal of Medicine website (nejm.org).

Thanks for the information.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

There's a ton
of money to be made from wrinkles who want to stay slim and healthy, and find a magic solution. Most people find the "eat less and exercise more" mantra to be too boring! I'm sure that all the
drug companies are frantically trying to find another appetite suppressant pill, similar to Fen-Fen in the 1980s, which was approved and then removed from the market.

I agree. They're looking for a diet pill that will be safe for long term usage. However, no pill will ever teach anyone how to eat a healthy diet or live a healthy lifestyle in general. As a matter of fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite. From my experience, most overweight and obese people don't like healthy whole foods, like fresh fruit and non-starchy vegetables. And if you give them a pill to suppresses their appetite, they will dislike the healthy foods even more. And they will eat even less of the healthy foods that they needed in the first place.
So, in my opinion, there will never be such a thing as a safe long term appetite suppressant. In the long term, it will cause them to be malnourished with possible side effects from the weight loss medications. They will just be trading one problem for another.

In the study I read, there was no mention of what the diet consisted of. It just said that it was a low-calorie crash diet. Also, there was no mention of why 10 out of 50 were successful and kept the weight off. I find that strange.

[ladydoc]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I agree. They're looking for a diet pill that will be safe for long term usage. However, no pill will ever teach anyone how to eat a healthy diet or live a healthy lifestyle in general. As a matter of fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite. From my experience, most overweight and obese people don't like healthy whole foods, like fresh fruit and non-starchy vegetables. And if you give them a pill to suppresses their appetite, they will dislike the healthy foods even more. So they will eat even less of the healthy foods that they needed in the first place.
So, in my opinion, there will never be such a thing as a safe long term appetite suppressant. In the long term, it will cause them to be malnurished with possible side effects from the weight loss medications. They will just be trading one problem for another.

In the study I read, there was no mention of what the diet consisted of. It just said that it was a low-calorie crash diet. Also, there was no mention of why 10 out of 50 were successful and kept the weight off. I find that strange.

Most of the articles I have read about keeping weight off put the percentage of success as much less then 20%....

[saratogaman]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Who the heck is McClatchy news services? They can't afford the AP wire?

McClatchy is a group of about 30 newspapers across the nation in small to medium-size communities.
They have many of their own resourceful reporters and analysts who often uncover stories overlooked or ignored by the mainstream/lamestream medium.
IMHO they do not seem to have a particular bias or slant.
There's more out there than AP and FOX News...we need to read them all and form our own opinions.

[ladydoc]

Originally Posted by saratogaman

McClatchy is a group of about 30 newspapers across the nation in small to medium-size communities.
They have many of their own resourceful reporters and analysts who often uncover stories overlooked or ignored by the mainstream/lamestream medium.
IMHO they do not seem to have a particular bias or slant.
There's more out there than AP and FOX News...we need to read them all and form our own opinions.

By lamestream media, I assume you refer to news that does not agree with your point of view?