Confusing foreign health studies reported by Mcclatchy News service, in The Daily Sun
 

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.

:wave:

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.

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

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

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

Sorry. forgot to quote you so here is a bump

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.

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.

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

Thanks for the information.

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.

:wave:

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

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?

Thank you Saratogaman. I really didn't know and you explained very well.

and as Shakespeare said so aptly...There are more things in heaven and earth......did he say Gracie?

No... I think it was Horatio.

Built in bias
 

I couldn't agree more and I would add this (opinion): It stands to reason that, at some point, the conclusion would call for medication as a solution. If the bulk of the study participants fail to maintain their (lower) weight, it can be said that new medications need to be developed. And, indeed, that's what was called for, as reported in the news article: "The researchers, led by Joseph Proietto of the University of Melbourne's Department Of Medicine, write that more than one solution to obesity will likely be necessary: a combination of medications that will have to be safe for long-term use."

No other possible solution was mentioned. Not stress reduction, not nutrition education nor better diet strategies. The only thing mentioned was, "a combination of medications." That makes it seem as though that was what they were after all along. Therefore, it makes it seem like bias was built into the study from the very beginning.

Here is the available summary. Cut and pasted from NEJM website. TO Villages PL, please don't confuse the term medicine with medication which we often shorten to medicine. The authors looked at several hormones and other naturally produced substances which have been implicated in producing a feeling of hunger or feelings of satiety. These are chemical messages which our own bodies make which cause us to seek calories or feel satisfied. The significant question which they have sought to answer is whether a year after weight reduction, does the body adapt to the new weight as its new baseline or even a year later, is the body still producing messages which tell the patient (s)he is essentially starving and must find more food? This information helps in understanding why patients have such difficulty keeping the weight off, and continue to feel hungry when those of normal weight do not complain of hunger at the same intake and exercise.


Methods

We enrolled 50 overweight or obese patients without diabetes in a 10-week weight-loss program for which a very-low-energy diet was prescribed. At baseline (before weight loss), at 10 weeks (after program completion), and at 62 weeks, we examined circulating levels of leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, gastric inhibitory polypeptide, glucagon-like peptide 1, amylin, pancreatic polypeptide, cholecystokinin, and insulin and subjective ratings of appetite.




Results

Weight loss (mean [±SE], 13.5±0.5 kg) led to significant reductions in levels of leptin, peptide YY, cholecystokinin, insulin (P<0.001 for all comparisons), and amylin (P=0.002) and to increases in levels of ghrelin (P<0.001), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (P=0.004), and pancreatic polypeptide (P=0.008). There was also a significant increase in subjective appetite (P<0.001). One year after the initial weight loss, there were still significant differences from baseline in the mean levels of leptin (P<0.001), peptide YY (P<0.001), cholecystokinin (P=0.04), insulin (P=0.01), ghrelin (P<0.001), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (P<0.001), and pancreatic polypeptide (P=0.002), as well as hunger (P<0.001).

Sincere thanks for that correction. I went back and gave my statement a complete makeover. I hope it makes sense this time around. :Screen_of_Death:


Thanks again for the above explanation which was well stated. My answer: Yes, the body will adapt to the new weight as its new baseline, given the proper tools to work with. But first of all, I feel that the participants never should have been put on a crash diet. This puts stress on the body and may partly be the trigger for some of those stuborn hunger hormones. Maybe not, but it's not a healthy way to lose weight and researchers should follow this suggestion: "Do no harm."

The second thing is: Hunger hormones increasing over time may be the result of a poor diet. A low calorie diet is not necessarily a good diet. Also, patients may have difficulty in keeping the weight off because they tend to revert to their former eating habits. A junk food diet will raise insulin and stimulate hunger.

Possibly, the reason 10 of the study participants were successful is because they may have abandoned processed foods entirely. If that was the case, then the study only proves that hunger hormones were doing what nature intended them to do. If your body is missing good nutrition (i.e., high fiber natural whole foods) hunger hormones will be triggered with a vengence. Your body can't tell you that you lack good nutrition, it can only make you hungry and hope that you make some good food choices.

I agree. Too often the story telling is only one sided. The stats being published about how little effective care/surgery is for the elderly (Medicare) relates the deaths after a year leaving one to conclude that money is being wasted. However what was not revealed were the number of elderly patients who benefited greatly from that care/surgery

While I would never throw caution to the wind I prefer to follow the greeks advice and do all things in moderation. I'm just glad they said it long ago and not too recently given their bankruptcy dilemma:wave: