Jump to content



Photo

Medical Miracle: weight loss pill that works


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,863 posts

Posted 26 December 2006 - 08:55 PM

I went on the Dolly Parton diet and had to buy a bra.
I went on the 30 diet and lost a month.

But now could this be true? In a pill?
It just don't seem right.

Article link

Pill that tricks you into losing weight

An obesity pill which can help women drop two dress sizes in a year has been hailed by scientists after stunning test results.
The drug fools the body's metabolism into staying active, cutting weight by 12 per cent in under a year.
For a 12 and a half stone woman, this would mean shedding 21lb - or two dress sizes. The pill, Excalia, is said to work better and faster than existing drugs.
A course of one a day could have a dramatic effect on quality of life and cut the risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
Excalia will need official approval before being made available on the NHS.
Many slimmers find that, after weeks of successfully losing weight, their metabolism slows down and they hit a plateau. With the pounds slower to come off, many lose their resolve and end up piling weight back on.

Excalia gets round this by tricking the hypothalamus - the brain's weight and appetite thermostat - into keeping the metabolism running fast.

The pill contains two drugs which are already widely used, against epilepsy and smoking, so there is a reduced danger of side-effects emerging in trials. The pills also boost levels of a hormone that stops us getting hungry.


Edited by Rogerdodger, 26 December 2006 - 09:01 PM.


#2 maineman

maineman

    maineman

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 26 December 2006 - 09:46 PM

Excalia has been used in a study of 118 VERY obese people and they did lose weight. Almost one half of the study participants dropped out of the study because of side effects. The drugs include buproprion, which is the anti depressant known as Wellbutrin, and is also the drug in ZYBAN which has been marketed/used in smoking cessation. They combined that with an anti siezure medicine, zonisamide which, while new, is similar to Dilantin. Who in thier right mind thought of giving epilepsy meds to fat people? There is no doubt that there are fat people who need help, but pills like these are most likely NOT the answer. Certain medical conditions really need medication and fortunately there are a whole lot of really superb drugs out there. But come on... can't people who eat too much get a grip? I've been involved with obesity research since college and obviously deal with many overweight folks in primary care...and more and heavier every day. The whole rise in world wide obesity has got us all baffled... I honestly think the only solution will come with worldwide famine, a plague or another ice age... mm
He who laughs laughs laughs laughs.

My Blog -Maineman Market Advice

#3 EntropyModel

EntropyModel

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,723 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 01:14 PM

Those scientists might want to look at Crystal meth & heroine, they shed the pounds too with 'minimal side effects'.



maineman

I've been involved with obesity research since college and obviously deal with many overweight folks in primary care...and more and heavier every day. The whole rise in world wide obesity has got us all baffled... I honestly think the only solution will come with worldwide famine, a plague or another ice age...



I have been an athlete my whole life(39), and am surrounded by other athletic people. We all have a lifetime's interest in fitness physiology and nutrition, and from where we sit its very simple - People eat too many calories, and don't get enough physical activity, therefore they put on weight.


Let me compare my childhood with kids today -
1. I walked or cycled to school - most kids today are driven or get bus.

2. I didn't watch much t.v., I played outside for hours with friends ..lots of exercise....kids today have to arrange 'play dates', which is usually in the house with no activity.

3. We didn't eat out much - today most people eat out alot, and also get take out alot, and that food is far higher in calorie intake, and also 'trains the brain' to like that kinds of processed food with low nutrients and high colorie per portion size, Oh and portion sizes have doubled.


The adult weight gain is the same - reduced physical activity, increased calorie intake - there is no mystery here.

Of course, being a capitalist society, a 10 billion+ dollar industry has grown up trying to maintain the problem and make money off people who want to lose weight, the 'diet/supplement' industry. The govt has failed to regulate the false claims.

The 'solution' will be to reverse what has occured in the last 20 years. That will mean

1. Government regulating snake oil saleman on t.v. misinforming the public with magic pills & diets.

2. Have nutrution and fitness education compulsarily in schools so people can't be manipulated by the 10 billion dollar 'diet/supllement' industry complex who's sole purpose is making money off this, and in many cases causing it.

3. Put back physical activity for kids daily in school rather than cutting it, 30minute daily to 'reprogram' our kids to the joys of not sitting infront of t.v., computer or zoning out with ipods and instead doing athletics, sports etc

4. Govt sponsored national education campaign with clear simple message -

Know how many calories you need and don't eat more ( no matter whether than come form fat, protein or carbs) and exercise and

Prepare food from scratch i.e. do not buy prepackaged food, cut back on take out and eating out.( getting the focus away from calorie and onto nutrition).

walk at least 30minutes a day.

Get athelete's to be cheer leaders, get sitcoms and t.v. drama's to push the message i.e. Use the 'mass program device' known as t.v. to reprogram people.

If govt really wants to avoid future health costs, give people free bi-annual (BMI) fat check and fitness test. If people improve they're scores into a healthy zone, give them free Govt health insurance or at least reduced health insurance.

Why hasn't this happened? did I mention its a 10billion+ growing industry, plus just think of the powerful food lobies who don't want public to stop buying take out and eat out so much.


Right now is the worst of both worlds -
1. Mass population overweight and getting fatter by the year.

2. Those trying to lose weight being misdirected, and ending up unhealthier than they started with yoyo diets, potentially dangerous supplement and don't get me started on the dangerous 'exercise' programs sold on t.v. which lord knows how many injuries they cause.



Mark.

Edited by entropy, 27 December 2006 - 01:19 PM.

Question everything, especially what you believe you know. The foundation of science is questioning the data, not trusting the data. I only trust fully falsified, non vested interest 'data', which is extremely rare in our world of paid framing narratives 'psy ops'. Market Comments https://markdavidson.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLznkbTx_dpw_-Y9bBN3QR-tiNSsFsSojB

#4 endisnear

endisnear

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 439 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:44 PM

Those scientists might want to look at Crystal meth & heroine, they shed the pounds too with 'minimal side effects'.




maineman

I've been involved with obesity research since college and obviously deal with many overweight folks in primary care...and more and heavier every day. The whole rise in world wide obesity has got us all baffled... I honestly think the only solution will come with worldwide famine, a plague or another ice age...



I have been an athlete my whole life(39), and am surrounded by other athletic people. We all have a lifetime's interest in fitness physiology and nutrition, and from where we sit its very simple - People eat too many calories, and don't get enough physical activity, therefore they put on weight.


Let me compare my childhood with kids today -
1. I walked or cycled to school - most kids today are driven or get bus.

2. I didn't watch much t.v., I played outside for hours with friends ..lots of exercise....kids today have to arrange 'play dates', which is usually in the house with no activity.

3. We didn't eat out much - today most people eat out alot, and also get take out alot, and that food is far higher in calorie intake, and also 'trains the brain' to like that kinds of processed food with low nutrients and high colorie per portion size, Oh and portion sizes have doubled.


The adult weight gain is the same - reduced physical activity, increased calorie intake - there is no mystery here.

Of course, being a capitalist society, a 10 billion+ dollar industry has grown up trying to maintain the problem and make money off people who want to lose weight, the 'diet/supplement' industry. The govt has failed to regulate the false claims.

The 'solution' will be to reverse what has occured in the last 20 years. That will mean

1. Government regulating snake oil saleman on t.v. misinforming the public with magic pills & diets.

2. Have nutrution and fitness education compulsarily in schools so people can't be manipulated by the 10 billion dollar 'diet/supllement' industry complex who's sole purpose is making money off this, and in many cases causing it.

3. Put back physical activity for kids daily in school rather than cutting it, 30minute daily to 'reprogram' our kids to the joys of not sitting infront of t.v., computer or zoning out with ipods and instead doing athletics, sports etc

4. Govt sponsored national education campaign with clear simple message -

Know how many calories you need and don't eat more ( no matter whether than come form fat, protein or carbs) and exercise and

Prepare food from scratch i.e. do not buy prepackaged food, cut back on take out and eating out.( getting the focus away from calorie and onto nutrition).

walk at least 30minutes a day.

Get athelete's to be cheer leaders, get sitcoms and t.v. drama's to push the message i.e. Use the 'mass program device' known as t.v. to reprogram people.

If govt really wants to avoid future health costs, give people free bi-annual (BMI) fat check and fitness test. If people improve they're scores into a healthy zone, give them free Govt health insurance or at least reduced health insurance.

Why hasn't this happened? did I mention its a 10billion+ growing industry, plus just think of the powerful food lobies who don't want public to stop buying take out and eat out so much.


Right now is the worst of both worlds -
1. Mass population overweight and getting fatter by the year.

2. Those trying to lose weight being misdirected, and ending up unhealthier than they started with yoyo diets, potentially dangerous supplement and don't get me started on the dangerous 'exercise' programs sold on t.v. which lord knows how many injuries they cause.



Mark.



the med/pharma industries have no interest in preventing anything whatsoever unless they can do so w/a drug. Sure, there may be a few instances here of some good docs and clinics but overall, its in there best interest financially to keep us fat, doped up and stupid.

#5 maineman

maineman

    maineman

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 02:50 PM

Endisnear said:



"the med/pharma industries have no interest in preventing anything whatsoever unless they can do so w/a drug. Sure, there may be a few instances here of some good docs and clinics but overall, its in there best interest financially to keep us fat, doped up and stupid."


How did you know we all get together secretly and plan for the ill-being, laziness, and poor diet of millions and millions of people around the world? You have to admit we are pretty good at our plan, though. Look how successful we are. But, I believe you know too much...so watch your back :)



mm
He who laughs laughs laughs laughs.

My Blog -Maineman Market Advice

#6 EntropyModel

EntropyModel

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,723 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 06:30 PM

Endisnear said:



"the med/pharma industries have no interest in preventing anything whatsoever unless they can do so w/a drug. Sure, there may be a few instances here of some good docs and clinics but overall, its in there best interest financially to keep us fat, doped up and stupid."


How did you know we all get together secretly and plan for the ill-being, laziness, and poor diet of millions and millions of people around the world? You have to admit we are pretty good at our plan, though. Look how successful we are. But, I believe you know too much...so watch your back :)



mm


To be clear, I don't blame doctors for the 'fat epedemic'. Clearly this is a cultural problem as I outlined above, a shift to a sedentary society which medicates with food, and food is cheap and abundent as never before. The drug companies are doing their job in a capitistic society which is to make money off the problem, as are the gazillions of supplement makers, crazy excercise sellers etc etc

But whilst Doctors aren't too blame, they can't claim any credit on this issue either. Whatever the merits of advice given by medical community the last 20 years, weve seen a truly scary rise of obesity in last 10 years in America and UK for that matter, so it begs the quesiton Why has medical advice not helped? and why would any new advice make any difference?

I think the advice was good in theory but poor in reality because -

1. It Was poorly marketed - the 'message got lost', or wasn't important enough for Govt to spend the $ necessary to make it effective.I suggested how to make it effective above.

2. The advice ignored the reality human psychology.
They overestimate the nutritional education of the public,and the will power of people.
Most people do not understands how to calculate how many calories they are eating, and it would take a heck of alot of educate them to it.

So I think it was a mistake to try to focus on carbs/fats and calorie intake.

It has to be simpler - don't eat prepacked food instead prepare meals from scratch, don't eat take out or eat out more than once a week..yeah..screams of terror...because eating out or take out is now 'culturally enshrined' ...that's THE problem.


3.. They got bogged down arguing about scientific justificaiton of diet plans
e.g. whats better low fat/high fat/zone/atkin etc debate, which just ended up help advertise these things.

If you 50+ lbs overweight, barring a rare medical problem its mostly because you eat too much, its doesn't matter where calories come from fat/protein or carbs....don't get drawn into that nonsense it just legitimizes it.


4. Lack focus on physical activity. The statment made in your thread above is an example of this mixed message
- ' confirm that exercise is NOT a good way to lose weight (eating less is)'

This lacks context, it assumes vast over eating but isn't born out by statistics. The average person gains 1-5lbs a year from middle age.1lb fat is 3500calories. But even 5lbs is only 5*3500=18,000calories a year. Thats just a daily calorie excess of just 10 to 50calories!

Exercise doesn't burn many calories' so won't overcome vast over eating, but it helps people over eating say 50-100calories a day, in many ways
a. It can build muscle mass and hence raise basal metablism. A sedentary person can easily add 10lbs muscle, adding approx' 100cal day to calorie needs, if they don't eat more that removes their 50cal excess.
b. 30min brisk walk=150cal, again well excess of 50cal.
c. Exercise *may* improve hormonal responses, which help to lower fat storage.

Of course, reality is people defeat themselves by eating MORE once they do some exercise. So your Behaviour mod point is key and correct in other thread, and I hope the medical community focus on that going forward.



I've often been asked for advice, and I've reached the realization people need plans that are workable by human nature and their level of interest and education, not 'idealistic' plans . Here's the simple advice I think that recognizes the problems above i.e. isn't too complex, recognizes indivual differences and psychology-

If your body fat is above 30%, get a physical from a Doctor. Then start with walking as much possible, no other exercise ( forces are too high on joints plus heart attack risk). In this case focus has to be on calorie reduction. i.e. don't harp on about intense aerobic or exercise for this group, it will make them fail.

Once people get into 20-30% body fat zone, they can add lifting some weight to build some muscle to boost metabolism, and some aerobics. to burn off excess calories They must NOT increase calorie intake or it wont help. i.e. They don't need to obsess about exerise methods either, it won't make much different for them...literally doing 'anything' will see most of the gains from exercise.

( so the focus is initially more on nutritional changes as you said, but exercise can contribute increasingly as body fat drops, because people are psychologically able to 'handle it' once they get their weight down a bit and see progress...now they realize maybe some 'pain' is worth the gain)

If people can get into 10-20% body fat ( this is all for men add 5% for women) - now they can start arguing finer points of fats/carbs/protein etc and exercise methods, it will make some difference for these people. I think i've tried nearly everything in the last 20years to see 'what really works' - for many people its a way to keep motivated for many people..tinkering with nutrition and exercise methods, so let people have their 'faiths' if it keeps them motivated...and Dcotors don't shoot down the science too fast, your right but just let people be....its a bit like atheists might be right, but they are very unpopular.

People below 10% bodyfat will be atheletic types who don't need any help...they usually know about scientific training methods and realize most of the 'diets' and exercise methods are bogus. Er, put me in that camp..call me a non believer, cynic of whatever...but i've maintain 5-7% body fat to age 39 so forgive me if I stick to what I've found works for me.

Mark.

Edited by entropy, 27 December 2006 - 06:44 PM.

Question everything, especially what you believe you know. The foundation of science is questioning the data, not trusting the data. I only trust fully falsified, non vested interest 'data', which is extremely rare in our world of paid framing narratives 'psy ops'. Market Comments https://markdavidson.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLznkbTx_dpw_-Y9bBN3QR-tiNSsFsSojB

#7 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 07:17 PM

The trailblazing IJO article (by S. W. Keith, D. T. Redden et al) concludes that: "Undue attention has been devoted to reduced physical activity and food marketing practices as postulated causes for increases in the prevalence of obesity, leading to neglect of other plausible mechanisms and well-intentioned, but potentially ill-founded, proposals for reducing obesity rates."

They suggest no fewer than 10 other possible causes.

1. Lack of sleep
2. Polybrominated diphenyl ether
3. New drugs for diabetes, blood pressure, depression, allergies or oral contraceptives
4. Giving up smoking
5. The age at which our mothers bore us
6. The increase of Hispanic American adults
7. Air-conditioning
8. Heredity
9. Natural selection
10. The human adenovirus Ad-36

http://www.theaustra...41-7583,00.html
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#8 maineman

maineman

    maineman

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 08:49 PM

No one is disagreeing here. Let me clear up a few things. First of all, PLEASE I offer a day spent with me in the office, i.e. the "REAL" world.... I love human beings, really, but they are an odd bunch. Like with any behavioral modification program you really have to know each person individually, their level of readiness and their level of understanding. Explaining a weight loss program to one of my college-educated professionals who is well off, has access to fitness equipment, knows how to read a food label, etc. is VERY different from helping one of my factory workers who lives in a trailer with only overweight family members.... Ultimately, though, all of them have to learn how to eat fewer calories. Let me explain the exercise-as-a-weight-loss tool concept. Everyone who is overweight eats too much. Most are sedentary. Many people tie the two together in that oh-so human concept of "when I'm ready", meaning that when they have had success, albeit short term, in the past, it was when they "got healthy" and exercised and ate better. So over time they are unable to separate the two. What the authors in the Mayo Clinic article were discussing, and which is totally true, is that for the average overweight person the KEY TO LOSING WEIGHT is learning to eat fewer, healthier calories. 30 minutes running on a flat treadmill (something VERY few people do,by the way) will "burn" around 200 to 300 calories. That's how many calories are in a couple of cookies, a couple of bananas, a slice of pizza, a small order of fries at a fast food restaurant, etc. In other words, NOT MUCH food, and to get a sedentary person to RUN for 30 minutes is a monumental task. Its a whole lot easier to give up a piece of pizza than to run for 30 minutes, for the average Joe. So to be effective we have to teach folks how to eat a "normal" amount of healthy food, first and foremost. At the same time I advise patients to begin and exercise routine and build up slowly over time. For some people even a 10 minute walk is a big deal, but if we encourage them to keep at it and build up, then eventually they will become more athletic. When you are 200 pounds but should be 150 pounds, you can lose weight quickly at first if you are motivated, but without an exercise plan you will have trouble maintaining the weight loss. When you are down to 170 pounds, say, but you have been able to build up to your 30 minutes of brisk aerobics, those 300 calories "burned" are going to help an awful lot. As for causes of the obesity epidemic? We've discussed that here many times. The truth is there is no one single cause, but clearly lousy, abundant food, sedentary lifestyle, social isolation are clearly at the top of the "obvious" list. We should bring back drugs, nudity, rock and roll and hanging out like we had in the sixties... seemed like no one was fat then? mm
He who laughs laughs laughs laughs.

My Blog -Maineman Market Advice

#9 EntropyModel

EntropyModel

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,723 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 09:28 PM

Maineman I do agree with everything you said, and as you rightly said the crux of it is - .

So to be effective we have to teach folks how to eat a "normal" amount of healthy food, first and foremost.


I was really addressing a broader questions of why this message seems so hard to teach this etc. I offered 4 reasons why above, and also offered solutions to getting the message across better in my original post via actions Govt, school eductions etc.

The last 10 years shows unless something is drastically changed as regards how this 'simple message' is taught, the problem will grow. unimaginable and frightening as that is.

Mark.

Edited by entropy, 27 December 2006 - 09:29 PM.

Question everything, especially what you believe you know. The foundation of science is questioning the data, not trusting the data. I only trust fully falsified, non vested interest 'data', which is extremely rare in our world of paid framing narratives 'psy ops'. Market Comments https://markdavidson.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLznkbTx_dpw_-Y9bBN3QR-tiNSsFsSojB

#10 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 27 December 2006 - 11:48 PM

"CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said because of the uncertainty in calculating the health effects of being overweight, the CDC is not going to use the brand-new figure of 25,814 in its public awareness campaigns and is not going to scale back its fight against obesity."

So let's get this straight. When the CDC's numbers said that obesity was overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of death, allegedly killing 400,000 Americans a year, it was all right to use that 400,000 figure non-stop to scare us into losing weight. But when the real number turns out to be just short of 26,000 then the CDC is so worried about "uncertainty" that they aren't going to use the figure. Obviously, Dr. Gerberding did not get her doctorate in logic.

The reason, of course, that Dr. Gerberding does not want to use the supposed 25,814 deaths (remember, we're not even certain there are this many) from obesity as the basis for a new campaign in the war on fat is that, well, as things go, it just isn't terribly useful. Gerberding knows that it is pretty hard to talk about an epidemic if you've only got 25,000 victims, and without talk of an epidemic it's pretty difficult to get the media's attention, Washington's money and, most importantly, push through a host of coercive policy measures that tell Americans what they can and what they cannot eat.

But notice, the good doctor isn't going to let a few hundred thousand fewer deaths stop a good thing. Despite the lack of credible statistics, we just "know" that obesity is still killing millions of Americans -- even if we can't find where they live -- and there is no reason to "scale back" the fight against obesity. Now that's what makes the CDC and much of official Washington such scary places. Typically a good public policy process first finds clear evidence of a substantial problem and then goes about finding a policy solution. Evidence drives and shapes policy. But here we have policy "creating" evidence. Even though the supposed justification for intervening into the lives of millions of Americans is now defunct, the claim that fat causes early death is still made and the campaign against obesity still goes forward.

Of course, what Dr. Gerberding was too modest to tell the Associated Press is that the 25,814 figure is not destined to survive for long as it is just too inconvenient. Already someone, somewhere, has started the tedious but very necessary work of crunching some more acceptable number that will bolster the "fact" of obesity=premature death back into headline-grabbing territory. But just to make that enterprise as difficult as possible, here are a few non-Washington statistics from the last 50 years about the alleged dangers of being overweight and obese.

First, take the study that really started the "obesity epidemic", the 1999 JAMA published research "Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States" which suggested that being overweight was responsible for about 300,000 deaths a year in the US. If you look at this data you find that individuals with BMI's of 25 -- overweight -- have a lower risk of dying prematurely than those with BMI's of 20 or normal weight. Again, those with BMI's of 20 have the same risk of premature death as those with a BMI of 30 -- obese.

Second, take another widely cited study, "Overweight, Obesity and Mortality from Cancer" (New England Journal of Medicine, 2003) which like the JAMA article generated huge headlines with its claim to provide a definitive account of the obesity-cancer relationship. The authors claimed that up to 90,000 cancer deaths a year could be avoided if every adult kept his or her BMI below 25. Yet the data actually shows something quite different. People with BMI's of 18.5-24.9 - normal -- had a cancer mortality rate of 4.5 deaths per 1000 study subjects while individuals with BMI's of 25-29.0 -- the overweight -- had a cancer mortality rate of 4.4 deaths per thousand -- actually lower. In other words, for the 100 millions plus Americans who are classified as overweight there was a negative correlation between being overweight and dying from cancer.

Nor are these findings flukes. Ancel Keys, the proponent of the cholesterol-heart disease theory, who over 25 years looked at fat and mortality rates in Japan, Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Finland and the United States came to similar conclusions. Published as the Seven Country Study in 1980, Keys found the risk of premature mortality due to excessive weight increased only at the extremes of over and under weight. A recent study looking at a group of Europeans from his original data found men with BMI's of less than 18.5 -- that is thin men -- had almost twice the mortality rate of either normal or overweight men, even controlling for smoking. The study further found that being overweight -- a BMI of 25-29.9 -- had no effect on mortality and even those men who were obese still had lower death rates than the thin men.

A similar pattern was found in a 1996 US study that re-analyzed data from previous studies involving more than 600,000 subjects. The study found white males with BMI's in the normal range of 19-21 had the same mortality rate as those with BMI's of 29-31 -- overweight and obese. Again, for non-smoking white males, the lowest mortality rate was found with BMI's of 23-29, a range that includes the overweight.

http://www.tcsdaily....aspx?id=042605E
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.