Exercise led to better health outcomes

[GysdeJongh]

<http://www.healio.com>

Exercise led to better health outcomes among TV's "The Biggest Loser"
contestants
May 26, 2012

PHILADELPHIA - Participants in the NBC reality program "The Biggest Loser,"
who underwent an exercise-centric weight loss program dramatically improved
their health, according to data presented here at the American Association
of Clinical Endocrinologists 21st Annual Scientific and Clinical Congress
Meeting.

The study assessed metabolic and BP response to intense exercise and
moderate caloric restriction in morbidly obese contestants on the TV show
(17 male, 18 female, aged 40ą14 years, 28 white, 4 black, 3 Latino, who
weighed 143ą30kg). The baseline BMI was 46ą6 kg/mē, with 5.6ą0.8% HbA1c.

Robert Huizenga, MD, associate clinical professor of medicine at UCLA and
medical advisor for NBC's "The Biggest Loser," told Endocrine Today that
medications and surgery aren't necessary if a rigorous exercise program is
used in morbidly obese patients.

Huizenga suggested that other physicians should introduce morbidly obese
patients to more intense methods of weight loss rather than bariatric
surgery as a first line of treatment to improve prediabetes, type 2 diabetes
and hypertension.

"Within a week or two, [hypertension vanishes in] 70% to 80% of our
patients," Huizenga said at a press conference.

"I think that it's time that we rethink diabetes. There's another way, if
the country would wake up and realize that we have to allocate our resources
in such a way that we can get these people back to normal.because right now
they don't know they can do it," Huizenga said.

[bj]

"GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
> <http://www.healio.com>
>
> Exercise led to better health outcomes among TV's "The Biggest Loser" contestants
> May 26, 2012
>
> PHILADELPHIA - Participants in the NBC reality program "The Biggest
> Loser," who underwent an exercise-centric weight loss program
> dramatically improved their health, according to data presented here at
> the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 21st Annual
> Scientific and Clinical Congress Meeting.
>
> The study assessed metabolic and BP response to intense exercise and
> moderate caloric restriction in morbidly obese contestants on the TV show

> (17 male, 18 female, aged 40±14 years, 28 white, 4 black, 3 Latino, who
> weighed 143±30kg). The baseline BMI was 46±6 kg/m², with 5.6±0.8% HbA1c.

>
> Robert Huizenga, MD, associate clinical professor of medicine at UCLA and
> medical advisor for NBC's "The Biggest Loser," told Endocrine Today that
> medications and surgery aren't necessary if a rigorous exercise program
> is used in morbidly obese patients.
>
> Huizenga suggested that other physicians should introduce morbidly obese
> patients to more intense methods of weight loss rather than bariatric
> surgery as a first line of treatment to improve prediabetes, type 2
> diabetes and hypertension.
>
> "Within a week or two, [hypertension vanishes in] 70% to 80% of our
> patients," Huizenga said at a press conference.
>
> "I think that it's time that we rethink diabetes. There's another way, if
> the country would wake up and realize that we have to allocate our
> resources in such a way that we can get these people back to
> normal.because right now they don't know they can do it," Huizenga said.
>

This strikes me as another one of those "Well, Duh...." studies.
bj

[GysdeJongh]

really ?
I encounter people who think

1) Excercise is bad because it can give you a hypo
2) Excercise will make you hungry and thus will increase your weight
3) The method is too fast and all people will regain all the weight. You
should loose body weight very slowly if they must.
4) The relation between exercise and health is an asscociation and
correlation is no causation. Healthy people exercise more and not the other
way around.
5) Those people are fat because they eat too many carbohydrates. If they
want to loose weight, cure their neuropathy, cure their kidney disease and
improve their toenails they should sit on their butt and eat fat.


So, maybe you and me are the only ones who think wtf

Gys

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

> bj wrote:
>> "GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>>> <http://www.healio.com>
>>>
>>> Exercise led to better health outcomes among TV's "The Biggest
>>> Loser" contestants May 26, 2012
>>>
>>> PHILADELPHIA - Participants in the NBC reality program "The Biggest
>>> Loser," who underwent an exercise-centric weight loss program
>>> dramatically improved their health, according to data presented here
>>> at
>>> the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 21st Annual
>>> Scientific and Clinical Congress Meeting.
>>>
>>> The study assessed metabolic and BP response to intense exercise and
>>> moderate caloric restriction in morbidly obese contestants on the TV

>>> show (17 male, 18 female, aged 40ￜ14 years, 28 white, 4 black, 3
>>> Latino, who
>>> weighed 143ￜ30kg). The baseline BMI was 46ￜ6 kg/mￜ, with 5.6ￜ0.8%

Improve their toenails?
Why did you write that?
M.

[randyf]

bj wrote:
>This strikes me as another one of those "Well, Duh...." studies.
>bj

I agree that eat less, exercise more is a "Duh", but what's different
here is the recommendation to start off big and intense. Most official
recommendations go for "slow and easy" - Boring and not nearly as
effective.

Whereas drastically lowered calorie levels, even for a week or a few
days, has been shown to result in dramatic plosive results immediately

Regards
Randy

[W. Baker]

randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:

Yes, if you only have a small amount of weight to lose. If you drop too
drastically when you metabolism catches up with your low calorie load you
will have to drop to a much lower calorie load to continue to lose. If
you start at 800, once you leel off on dropping pounds you will have to
cut to 500-600 andwill have a problem maintaining a healthy diet with
proper nutrients. If you start at 1600 or 1200 when you level off, you
can go to 1000 and still maintain a reasonable diet to live on.

Wendy

[GysdeJongh]

yes, and you could get a hypo from too much exercise

[Don Roberto]

On 5/29/2012 2:26 PM, randyf wrote:
> bj wrote:
>> This strikes me as another one of those "Well, Duh...." studies.
>> bj
>
>
> I agree that eat less, exercise more is a "Duh", but what's different
> here is the recommendation to start off big and intense. Most official
> recommendations

Define "official recommendations".

go for "slow and easy" - Boring and not nearly as
> effective.
>
> Whereas drastically lowered calorie levels, even for a week or a few
> days, has been shown to result in dramatic plosive results immediately
>

Duh....

Don Roberto

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh bracht volgend idée uit :

and bad toenails

M.

[GysdeJongh]

your getting there :)

[W. Baker]

GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:

When I was diagnosed over 25 years ago I lost aprox 70 lbs over a 9
month period. Used a starting point of approx. 1200 calories and had to
work down by the end. there are people here on this list who may well
have this kind of weight to lose so information like this is not simply
boilerplate.

Wendy.

[GysdeJongh]

Hi Wendy,
I was diagnosed in 2005 and went from 117kg to 75 in about a year. Kept the
weight off, but with a lot of consious effort. Sofar so good, but costed me
more effort than to stop smoking.

I gave up calorie counting when I realised that my body counts calories far
more efficient and accurate than any dietician or software and takes it's
own measures if energy stores are low. Makes sense to me. I've never seen a
mouse with a scale or a laptop.

Simply boilerplate ? Human are social animals. We tend to do what others do
and learn from each other. Judging from the numbers we are quite successful.
Asd itself is prove of that : see what others did to solve similar problems.

Here's to The Central Limit Theorem
Gys

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh formuleerde op woensdag :

Where am I getting?
I just dont understand what bad toenails have to do with weightloss :/
M.

[GysdeJongh]

nothing
millitant Low-Carbers think that weightloss is effortless with .... guess

Low Carb is also recommended for .... guess

[Maya Zuiderweg]

GysdeJongh stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

Ohhh.. :oÞ
M.

[Don Roberto]

So how did that "efficient and accurate" calorie counting body of yours
amass 117kg to begin with?

Makes sense to me. I've
> never seen a mouse with a scale or a laptop.
>



> Simply boilerplate ? Human are social animals. We tend to do what others
> do and learn from each other. Judging from the numbers we are quite
> successful.

Especially those among us who have no problem exploiting others.

Asd itself is prove of that : see what others did to solve
> similar problems.
>

The proper term is not "see", but *read* "what others (claim they) did
to solve similar problems.

Don Roberto

[GysdeJongh]

:)

[Chris Malcolm]

randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> bj wrote:
>>This strikes me as another one of those "Well, Duh...." studies.
>>bj

> I agree that eat less, exercise more is a "Duh", but what's different
> here is the recommendation to start off big and intense. Most official
> recommendations go for "slow and easy" - Boring and not nearly as
> effective.

This study was concerned with morbidly obese individuals. I've never
got anywhere near obesity, although I did put on a few stones weight
in the years prior to diabetes diagnosis. However, when I was young it
was pretty obvious that slow and easy exercise did nothing for me,
whereas intense gave good results in terms of improved strength,
fitness, and feeling good.

Now that I'm old fitness instructors and doctors all unanimously
advised me of the great importance of avoiding intense exercise, much
more dangerous at my age, whereas slow and easy would do me good. But
what I found by experiment was that slow and easy did very little for
me, whereas intense was just as effective as it always had been. Well,
maybe not as effective as when I was young, but still pretty dramatic,
and since it was contrary to what all the experts had told me.

Another thread reported that 10% were actually harmed by exercise. The
impression I'm getting is that recent research into exercise is
showing that there are much bigger and odder differences between
individuals in their responses to different kinds of exercise than
previously suspected.

> Whereas drastically lowered calorie levels, even for a week or a few
> days, has been shown to result in dramatic plosive results immediately

Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?

--
Chris Malcolm

[GysdeJongh]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
> chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?

lol
+3.14

[Wes Groleau]

We're trying to get them to eat less, and you're offering them pi.

If the thickness is a and the radius is z, the volume is πz²a

If that looks like garbage, your newsreader can't handle UTF-8,
so an alternate rendering is pizza

--
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else.
— Benjamin Franklin

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:52:13 -0400
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> We're trying to get them to eat less, and you're offering them pi.

It was only a small piece. He could have offered them
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628,
or even more.

[outsider]

Rounding up the last digit fixes that problem forever. More accuracy
means less! Kind of balances out "less is more." But that cannot
resolve the unixoid's favorite, "less is a superset of more."

Woe is me....where will it all end?

Quoth the Raven, nevermore!

Pass me a piece of that Poe-pie, willya? 2.71828 2.71828 2.71828
Why can't I get that number out of my head? It came to me naturally
while I was sleeping like a log, and now I can't seem to get rid
of it.

2.71828 Darn! There it is again.

[GysdeJongh]

but then I would need a Need new pie case, a much longer one then the one
I'm using now to store it. My current pie case is the longest one they sell
and I have to take pie before, during and after each meal. I could use an
e-case but those don't look very natural to me

[Bjørn Steensrud]

wrote:

Take your e-case and raise it to the power of an imaginary pi - then add the
result to your HbA1c. (We shall see tomorrow whether I succeeded :-) )

[W. Baker]

outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

wouldn't that Poe-pi = four and twenty blackbirds all singing, perhaps
Nevermore when the pi was opened.

Wendy

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:47:02 -0500
outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

> Quoth the Raven, nevermore!
>
> Pass me a piece of that Poe-pie, willya? 2.71828 2.71828 2.71828
> Why can't I get that number out of my head? It came to me naturally
> while I was sleeping like a log, and now I can't seem to get rid
> of it.
>
> 2.71828 Darn! There it is again.

Its hypnotic. It goes 2.718281828. The chances of that are only
1/10000. It's an outlier. Not important.

More important is that e to the i*pi is -1.

[randyf]

On 2 Jun 2012 09:56:47 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Randy wrote:
"Whereas drastically lowered calorie levels, even for a week or a few

days, has been shown to result in dramatic results
immediately"

Chris Wrote:
"Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?"

Reply:

Well yes, the results of the very low calorie diets are quite
astounding and surprising even though they have been reproduced for at
least 2 decades. Higher calorie, lower carb diets that produce that
same long term weight loss don't come close to producing the same
results. Here's a brief review.

In this study[1] obese diabetics were limited to 600 calories with
about 1/2 the calories available as carbs (~65 grams). At the start of
the diet fasting bg levels were 165, after One Week these were reduced
to 106 with only 2kg of weight loss.

Compare this to what's considered a successful very low carb (<20
grams) ~ 1400 calorie diet study [2]. At the beginning of the study bg
levels were 178. After 24 weeks of dieting and 11kg weight loss bg
levels were 158. What's funny is that this low carb diet study is
considered a success!

Even more impressive is that the 600 calorie diet "rejuvenated" the
pancreas such that by the end of the study insulin secretion was super
normalized. The subjects could secrete more insulin than the
non-diabetic controls! So much for the notion that once your beta
cells are gone there is no going back.

There is even evidence that these very low calorie diets can be used
intermittently a couple days a week for good response [3].

My main interest here is in what we can do via life style to deal with
our situation. The data on limiting calories, even if done
intermittently, is so powerful and little appreciated that it bears
repeating. It's a simple (though not easy) intervention that blows the
socks off most other approaches.

Regards
Randy

Refs:

1.
Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalization of beta cell
function in association with decreased pancreas
and liver triacylglycerol
http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf

2.
The effect of a low carbohydrate,ketogenic diet vs a low glycemic diet
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-5-36.pdf

3.
Short cycles of very low calorie diet in the therapy of obese type II
diabetes mellitus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8051339

[None Given]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:18:25 AM UTC-7, GysdeJongh wrote:
> <http://www.healio.com>
>
> Exercise led to better health outcomes among TV's "The Biggest Loser"
> contestants
> May 26, 2012
>
> PHILADELPHIA - Participants in the NBC reality program "The Biggest Loser,"
> who underwent an exercise-centric weight loss program dramatically improved
> their health, according to data presented here at the American Association
> of Clinical Endocrinologists 21st Annual Scientific and Clinical Congress
> Meeting.
>
> The study assessed metabolic and BP response to intense exercise and
> moderate caloric restriction in morbidly obese contestants on the TV show

> (17 male, 18 female, aged 40±14 years, 28 white, 4 black, 3 Latino, who

> weighed 143±30kg). The baseline BMI was 46±6 kg/m², with 5.6±0.8% HbA1c.

>
> Robert Huizenga, MD, associate clinical professor of medicine at UCLA and
> medical advisor for NBC's "The Biggest Loser," told Endocrine Today that
> medications and surgery aren't necessary if a rigorous exercise program is
> used in morbidly obese patients.
>
> Huizenga suggested that other physicians should introduce morbidly obese
> patients to more intense methods of weight loss rather than bariatric
> surgery as a first line of treatment to improve prediabetes, type 2 diabetes
> and hypertension.
>
> "Within a week or two, [hypertension vanishes in] 70% to 80% of our
> patients," Huizenga said at a press conference.
>
> "I think that it's time that we rethink diabetes. There's another way, if
> the country would wake up and realize that we have to allocate our resources
> in such a way that we can get these people back to normal.because right now
> they don't know they can do it," Huizenga said.

A low carb higher fat diet is effective due to better satiety from meals.
I do agree lowering overall calories is good.
"Healthy grains" aren't a working path for me, IMO.
Every health grain eater I know is not just over weight, they are
to a person obese as least as my memory serves me ;-)

Trig

[Don Roberto]

Yes - the 600 calorie diet illustrates the problem most T2s have, which
is that most T2s who show symptoms of being T2s are T2 BECAUSE THEY EAT
TOO MUCH.

Problem of course is that
a) no one should go on a 600 calorie diet without *very close* medical
supervision, and
b) no one can maintain such a diet for a prolonged period.
And no, yo-yo diets don't cut it either on the long run, to address your
"powerful data" on limiting calories intermittently.

So the answer for most T2s is as simple as "calories in - calories out",
of which it is a function and *should not* need to be debated in depth
by T2s of sound mind and who are not newbies:

Start with a caloric input of 1800/1500/1200, depending on your size and
ability to exercise. Tweak "to taste" along the way, and next thing
you'll know you're home freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

In 98 - after being dxed "borderline" - yours truly - scared shitless
after a little research - dropped 60 pounds in less in four months -
using a standard low-fat starchy diet then popular, and - miraculously -
all my numbers - bg, pb and lipids - went back to normal :-)

Only problem I encountered was I wasn't getting enough food -
pound-wise, that is - to maintain a tolerable level of satiety.
So I did *the logical thing* :-) and threw out most of the starchy carbs
called for by ye olde standard low-fat starchy diet, and replaced them
with the leafy kind, which I consumed mostly raw. You know, the type
that adds up to 125 calories per pound: broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower,
kohlrabi, green beans, radishes, etc.
Mushrooms also too.

BTW, here's asd fugitive's Alan's take on the matter (written almost a
year ago):
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2011/07/600-calorie-diet-for-type-2-diabetes.html


NOW, can we go back to debate some *real asd issues* - issues that
haven't been settled eons ago. Like a suitable pill box for Julie.

Don Roberto
--------------
Just say no.
--Nancy Reagan

[ra...@val.com]

Bob Wrote:
> Problem of course is that
> a) no one should go on a 600 calorie diet without *very close* medical
> supervision, and

Reply:
For clarity - The folks that study and publish (in scientific
journals) info on Very Low Calorie diets report these diets are safe
with very few, if any complications. In the late 70's these diets got
a lot of bad rap due to an inadequate commericial liquid supplement.
Of course those 600 calories must be high quality and a vitamin
supplement used, but other wise these diets are very safe with few
reported complications. See refs below.

Bob wrote:
> b) no one can maintain such a diet for a prolonged period.

Reply:
Without a definition of a "prolonged period" your statement is
meaningless.
In the study referenced these folks ate 600 calories for 8 weeks - is
that a "prolonged period"?
Morbidly obese folks have been maintained on 0 calorie diets for 1
year without issue.

Folks at normal or low BMI might be dead or likely seriously ill after
2 months on a diet of this sort.
On the other hand normal weight folks that limit or eliminate calories
a couple days a week (without overeating the rest of the time) not
only can avoid gaining weight but benefit from a number of
physiological improvements (including improved insulin sensitivity)

Bob wrote:
> And no, yo-yo diets don't cut it either on the long run, to address your
> "powerful data" on limiting calories intermittently.

Yo-yo dieting is repeated large swings in weight gain and loss over
time and that is Not what is being discussed here. Eating moderately
most days with the reduction or elimination of calories 1 or 2 days a
week has been shown to be beneficial (in this thread and others over
the years) on a wide number of metrics.

Bob wrote:
> BTW, here's asd fugitive's Alan's take on the matter (written almost a

> year ago):http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2011/07/600-calorie-diet-for-type-2...

Me and Alan continually disagreed on most technical issues. My beef
with you regarding Alan concerned your bullshit that the reason Alan
left ASD was because his friends didn't buy his book. And then your
deeper bullshit the this was somehow supported in the archives.

Bob wrote:
> NOW, can we go back to debate some *real asd issues* - issues that
> haven't been settled eons ago. Like a suitable pill box for Julie.

I do agree that for You a more suitable topic is Julies pill box, but
I disagree that the topic of various methods of calorie restriction
are not very much topical for ASD. The results have been substantiated
both in the literature and by personal reports. Rejunenating beta
cells to increase insulin secretion is something worth taking notice
of.

Randy

Refs:

Safety and effectiveness of a multidisciplinary very-lowcalorie
diet program for selected obese individuals.
http://tinyurl.com/7gogssn

The Safety and Efficacy of a Controlled Low-Energy ('Very-Low-
Calorie') Diet in the Treatment of Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes and
Obesity FREE
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=148&issue=4&page=873

The Evolution of Very-Low-Calorie Diets: An Update and Meta-analysis*
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v14/n8/abs/oby2006146a.html

[ra...@val.com]

Trig wrote:
> A low carb higher fat diet is effective due to better satiety from meals.
> I do agree lowering overall calories is good.

But Trig, the folks on the very low calorie diet reduced their bg
levels from 165 to 106 in just One week with a 4.5 lbs weight loss

On the other hand, folks on the very low carb high fat diets only
reduced their bg levels from 178 to 158 after 24 weeks and a weight
loss of ~ 24lbs.

Clearly the low calorie diet (it included 3 time more carbs than low
carb diet) trounces the low carb diet.

What's really amazing is that after 8 weeks the folks on the low
calorie had rejuvenated their beta cells to produce more insulin than
the non-diabetics controls at the beginning of the study.

These approaches are little appreciated here and deserve mention.

Regards
Randy

[W. Baker]

ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:

IN the nutrition business(not meant as an insult, but just a lack of
better term,) there is often the comment aabout the low carb diets that
they are too difficult to maintain so other diets i.e.,low fat higher
carb, beting easier to maintain are preferable for long term dieting, even
if both diets work as many articles qquoted here have said. (too long a
sentence!) I think that a low carg diet, a modified, mediun one is what
I follow, would be easier to maintain than the 600 calorie diet.

The fact that the more extreme, 600 calorie diet got faster results
lowering bgs may not be the whole answer if it requires constant
supervision, etc, as long as the low carb one is moving in the right
direction in a similar time frame. the same could , probably be said for
the favorite low fat higher carb diet compared to the 600 calorie one.

Wendy

[ra...@val.com]

Hi Wendy,

The 600 calorie diet is not intended to be followed continuously
without end, if fact it would eventually led to death.
Nor is the 600 calorie diet easy (when followed for days on end).
Quite the contrary - it's probably the hardest of any diet to
maintain.

The point it that this diet results in improvements to a degree that
far out shine other diets in a matter of days. Even long term it far
surpasses a very strict low carb diet at similar weight loss. For
those that are obese or even overweight and are highly motivated and
desirous for quick results this can be an attractive approach

I find it useful (when I can muster the will power) for 1 or 2 days a
week.

Regards
Randy

[ra...@val.com]

Bob wrote:
> Define "official recommendations".

> go for "slow and easy"

Reply:
1 to 2 lbs weight loss a week as per Mayo Clinic and others.

Randy

[W. Baker]

ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:

: On Jun 5, 3:14?pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: > ra...@val.com <ra...@val.com> wrote:
: > : Trig wrote:
: >
: > : > A low carb higher fat diet is effective due to better satiety from meals.
: > : > I do agree lowering overall calories is good.
: >
: > : But Trig, the folks on the very low calorie diet reduced their bg
: > : levels from 165 to 106 in just One week with a 4.5 lbs weight loss
: >

: > : On the other hand, ?folks on the very low carb high fat diets only

: > : reduced their bg levels from 178 to 158 after 24 weeks and a weight
: > : loss of ~ 24lbs.
: >
: > : Clearly the low calorie diet (it included 3 time more carbs than low
: > : carb diet) trounces the low carb diet.
: >
: > : What's really amazing is that after 8 weeks the folks on the low
: > : calorie had rejuvenated their beta cells to produce more insulin than
: > : the non-diabetics controls at the beginning of the study.
: >
: > : These approaches are little appreciated here and deserve mention.
: >
: > : Regards
: > : Randy
: >
: > IN the nutrition business(not meant as an insult, but just a lack of
: > better term,) there is often the comment aabout the low carb diets that
: > they are too difficult to maintain so other diets i.e.,low fat higher
: > carb, beting easier to maintain are preferable for long term dieting, even

: > if both diets work as many articles qquoted here have said. ?(too long a
: > sentence!) ?I think that a low carg diet, a modified, mediun one is what

: > I follow, would be easier to maintain than the 600 calorie diet.
: >
: > The fact that the more extreme, 600 calorie diet got faster results
: > lowering bgs may not be the whole answer if it requires constant
: > supervision, etc, as long as the low carb one is moving in the right

: > direction in a similar time frame. ?the same could , probably be said for

: > the favorite low fat higher carb diet compared to the 600 calorie one.
: >
: > Wendy

: Hi Wendy,

: The 600 calorie diet is not intended to be followed continuously
: without end, if fact it would eventually led to death.
: Nor is the 600 calorie diet easy (when followed for days on end).
: Quite the contrary - it's probably the hardest of any diet to
: maintain.

: The point it that this diet results in improvements to a degree that
: far out shine other diets in a matter of days. Even long term it far
: surpasses a very strict low carb diet at similar weight loss. For
: those that are obese or even overweight and are highly motivated and
: desirous for quick results this can be an attractive approach

: I find it useful (when I can muster the will power) for 1 or 2 days a
: week.

: Regards
: Randy

So did those old liquid diets that ended up killin g people sooner rather
than later. Total fasting would work too if one could sustain it. If a
diet is impossible to follow unless one has had bariatric surgery unless
one it kid of locked up away from food one could cheat on, it is
thoeretically fine, but practically not as something to try to promote.
Maybe some few people like you and Gys cah handle this kind of thing, but
not most poeple so woud nt be terribly useful for day to day medicine adn
diabetes care.

Wendy

[None Given]

Perhaps but for on going success, satiety is required. And for
me the key was fat and few carbs. I lost inches. And only then
did I add exercise. I do somewhat more in the way of carbs now
but my diet is still relative low carb or at least relatively slow
carbs I hope. Peanut and lentils as the carb sources.

BMI 24 from ~30

though tomorrow it will be carbs from filberts...........Trig

[ra...@val.com]

Trig - I agree.
What's works for you, what's compatible with one's nature is
ultimately the final arbitrator.
And I don't deny (and never have) the positive results you have
achieved.

There is a larger issue though that needs to be clarified though.
Often when data is presented that's (perceived) at odds with what one
is doing (in this case low carb vs low calorie) folks get defensive.
They take the presentation of data as a personal swipe at their
approach of dealing with their condition.

Data is just data. When it's perceived as a personal attack,
objectivity is lost. The conversation turns personal and folks that
would normally have a friendly respectful relationship take a turn to
the dark side. My presentation of this information is not meant to
degrade or deny the results you or any one else have achieved.

Regards
Randy

[ra...@val.com]

Wendy,

Please read my response to None Given below.

Regards
Randy

[outsider]

Before diagnosis of diabetes, I lived for 6 months with an individual
who believed that eating well, to the point that being sated would lead
to weight loss, and proceeded to provide (it was their house) dinners
that were satisfying. What I recall was excellent steaks, excellent
mashed potatoes, home made gravy, and excellent green veggies along
with a great salad.

I lost a lot of weight. OTOH meal pricing and preparation were
demanding. I was shown "the way" (doubtless one of many) and while
it worked, I couldn't maintain it. Had I been able to, T2 might
never have emerged.

Once T2 hit with its own brand of fury, *everything* became more
difficult.

Can I say I was blindsided by this disease? To a great extent yes.
But I have to acknowledge that there were early signs that something
was amiss, signs that in hindsight were pretty potent, but I sure
never understood them and neither did my physicians.

AFAIC, you were very fortunate, and I wish you good fortune in keeping
that devil diabetes at bay for the rest of your life. T2 is, none the
less, an insidious taskmaster, and occasionally hits people who maintain
good weight control. Fortunately, those cases seem quite rare.

[Don Roberto]

There I figured I quit returning righteous ranting Randy's insults to
see if he too can refrain from personal verbal abuse.
For once.

Fat freaking chance.
Once again - nothing but insults, lots of getting lost in details, and
nothing of practical value.

Even threw in a couple of paragraphs on how yours truly dealt with and
licked the T2 beast. To counter redundant righteous ranting Randy's
persistent claims that I not only do not contribute to asd discussions
by responding to his copy and paste exercises in a manner approved by
him, but also to counter his claims that I would not disclose how I deal
with my diabetes.

A couple of paragraphs he snipped.
So he can go on claiming that I would not disclose how I deal with my
diabetes.

On 6/5/2012 7:36 AM, ra...@val.com wrote:
> Bob Wrote:
>> Problem of course is that
>> a) no one should go on a 600 calorie diet without *very close* medical
>> supervision, and
>
>
> Reply:
> For clarity - The folks that study and publish (in scientific
> journals) info on Very Low Calorie diets report these diets are safe
> with very few, if any complications.

You ever get the idea that the predominant purpose of asd discussions
isn't to endlessly compare and argue over minute details of studies "in
scientific journals" - especially when some of the participants in the
discussions refuse to disclose their qualifications - but how different
approaches to glucose imbalances are dealt with/remedied by members of
this group?

In the late 70's these diets got
> a lot of bad rap due to an inadequate commericial liquid supplement.
> Of course those 600 calories must be high quality and a vitamin
> supplement used, but other wise these diets are very safe with few
> reported complications. See refs below.
>
> Bob wrote:
>> b) no one can maintain such a diet for a prolonged period.
>
> Reply:
> Without a definition of a "prolonged period" your statement is
> meaningless.

Only for those lacking common sense.
Here are a couple of hints though: A "prolonged period" is definitely
*longer than a minute*, and definitely *shorter than a millennium*.

> In the study referenced these folks ate 600 calories for 8 weeks - is
> that a "prolonged period"?
> Morbidly obese folks have been maintained on 0 calorie diets for 1
> year without issue.

Really? Any references for that?
Not that this is relevant for any practical purposes.

>
> Folks at normal or low BMI might be dead or likely seriously ill after
> 2 months on a diet of this sort.

No shit, Sherlock.

> On the other hand normal weight folks that limit or eliminate calories
> a couple days a week (without overeating the rest of the time) not
> only can avoid gaining weight but benefit from a number of
> physiological improvements (including improved insulin sensitivity)
>
> Bob wrote:
>> And no, yo-yo diets don't cut it either on the long run, to address your
>> "powerful data" on limiting calories intermittently.
>
> Yo-yo dieting is repeated large swings in weight gain and loss over
> time and that is Not what is being discussed here. Eating moderately
> most days with the reduction or elimination of calories 1 or 2 days a
> week has been shown to be beneficial (in this thread and others over
> the years) on a wide number of metrics.
>
>
> Bob wrote:
>> BTW, here's asd fugitive's Alan's take on the matter (written almost a
>> year ago):http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2011/07/600-calorie-diet-for-type-2...
>
> Me and Alan continually disagreed on most technical issues.

Of course you would. Alan had problems, but being wrong on most
technical issues wasn't one of them,
BUT WTF does that have to do with this "discussion"?

My beef
> with you regarding Alan concerned your bullshit that the reason Alan
> left ASD was because his friends didn't buy his book. And then your
> deeper bullshit the this was somehow supported in the archives.
>

I suppose that now I am supposed to re-post the link to the asd thread
that clearly supports my "bullshit", so you can snip it again, then
claim once again that *part* of Alan's reason for leaving asd was
because even some of his "friends" chided him for pitching his book on
asd. Which of course has already been mutated by redundant righteous
ranting Randy into "his friends not buying his book".

Isn't it nice that you can snip and cut anything to fit your
ever-changing self-serving agenda? Then get into endless arguments about
what was snipped and what wasn't?

> Bob wrote:
>> NOW, can we go back to debate some *real asd issues* - issues that
>> haven't been settled eons ago. Like a suitable pill box for Julie.
>
> I do agree that for You a more suitable topic is Julies pill box,

No need to insult Julie and her choice of subjects.

but
> I disagree that the topic of various methods of calorie restriction
> are not very much topical for ASD.

Yes. The first time. Even the second time.
BUT NOT after it has been discussed *and* settled a hundred times.

The results have been substantiated
> both in the literature and by personal reports.

Yes. Hundreds and thousands of times.

As Chris Malcolm put it so succinctly:

"Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?"

But, hey!
What can you say when you never have anything to say...


Don Roberto

[Don Roberto]

Thank you for your very practical response.
Randy's "stuff" is way too abstract, going off and getting lost on
tangents and footnotes.

Don Roberto

[ra...@val.com]

Bob wrote:
"There I figured I quit returning righteous ranting Randy's insults
to
see if he too can refrain from personal verbal abuse.
For once."

"Fat freaking chance.
Once again - nothing but insults, lots of getting lost in details,
and
nothing of practical value."

Reply:
Bull.
My response was not insulting in the slightest (as anyone can see by
reading the them), but corrections to your statements. And contrary
to what you imply these weren't irrelevant details.

Firstly I provided references to the fact that VLCD are generally safe
and without complications contrary to your implication.

Secondly I corrected your misstatement that fasting or eating lightly
a couple of days a weeks is "yo-yo dieting" and unhealthy. Not only is
this not yo-yo dieting, but it is health promoting. I even provided
references which you acknowledged but degraded without supplying any
reason.

Bob wrote:
" Even threw in a couple of paragraphs on how yours truly dealt with
and
licked the T2 beast. To counter redundant righteous ranting Randy's
persistent claims that I not only do not contribute to asd
discussions
by responding to his copy and paste exercises in a manner approved by
him, but also to counter his claims that I would not disclose how I
deal
with my diabetes."

Reply:

1. And congratulations for that, but don't expect a medal for acting
like an adult. Most folks here behave like that all the time. And you
have to call attention to yourself when you do it at all.
Reminds of a little boy beaming to his mother "See mommy I acted like
a big boy". Praise is due for a small child in this circumstance, but
expectations are higher here. You don't get brownie points for acting
like an adult.

2. I do acknowledge hammering you about not talking about diabetes but
I don't recall saying anything about your not disclosing your personal
approach. I might be wrong and you can provide something from the
archive.

3. It's not that you don't talk about technical matters or your
personal approach that I (and I'm sure others) find irritating. This
place is full of invaluable contributions that don't have anything to
do with diabetes. It's your continual, personal unjustified slams and
insults to folks here - comments that are inappropriate and only
function to create discord. It's all very very clearly stated in the
archives.

Bob wrote:
> A couple of paragraphs he snipped.

Reply;
I snipped what I wasn't responded to and what I snipped had nothing to
do with what I did comment on.

Bob wrote:
> So he can go on claiming that I would not disclose how I deal with my
> diabetes.

Reply:
Once again I don't recall hammering you on how you would not disclose
your personal approach to diabetes. Please jog my memory.
I have hammered you on the continual mean spirited insults you in
lieu of discussion of diabetes. In any case 1 or 2 exceptions in the
year I've seen your post is far from stellar.

Bob Wrote:
"You ever get the idea that the predominant purpose of asd discussions
isn't to endlessly compare and argue over minute details of studies
"in
scientific journals" - especially when some of the participants in
the
discussions refuse to disclose their qualifications - "

reply:
But Once again (and again) and I am not endlessly comparing and
arguing over minute details of studies, but correcting misinformation
you've provided.
-Limiting calories a couple time a week is not yo- yo dieting and
unhealthy - quite the contrary
-And VLCD diets are not as dangerous and you implied.

You think it's OK for you to source bad info but wrong to be
corrected. AND - its not trivial!!

Furthermore, I do not disrespect or deny the way others deal with
their diabetes. My record is clear on this.

Bob wrote:
" b) no one can maintain such a diet for a prolonged period."

Randy replied:

"Without a definition of a "prolonged period" your statement is
meaningless."

Bob writes:
Only for those lacking common sense.
Here are a couple of hints though: A "prolonged period" is definitely
*longer than a minute*, and definitely *shorter than a millennium*.

Reply:
And that's absurd. Do you ever think about the meaning of your words??
So after 1 minute of eating breakfast I'm on a "prolonged very low
calorie diet until lunch and need supervision of a doctor??
You so hell bent on ridicule that you show how little concern for
what's being discussed.

Randy Wrote:
In the study referenced these folks ate 600 calories for 8 weeks - is
that a "prolonged period"?
Morbidly obese folks have been maintained on 0 calorie diets for 1
year without issue.

Bob Wrote:
> Really? Any references for that?
> Not that this is relevant for any practical purposes.

Reply
Your not paying attention (as usual). This sub-thread is based on a
referenced study. It's obvious (past, and present) that you have no
interest in discussing what's being discussed.
Any way here's the reference again. [1] [2]

Randy wrote:
> with you regarding Alan concerned your bullshit that the reason
Alan
> left ASD was because his friends didn't buy his book. And then your
> deeper bullshit the this was somehow supported in the archives.

Bob writes:
> I suppose that now I am supposed to re-post the link to the asd thread
> that clearly supports my "bullshit",

Reply:
No Bob you don't have to do it, I will.

Here's what you said (direct quote) that I objected to:
//********************
"He (Alan) then left asd because "even those he considered to be his
friends here" wouldn't fork over the $20 it cost to buy his book. "
//*******************

I claim that presumptuous bullshit.

Here's the quote of Alan's that you say justifies your statement:

Alan Wrote:
//*******************************
"I quit using ASD because I guess I was just too sensitive to some of
the rather vicious attacks I got. I am hoping that this group might
concentrate on dealing with the disease instead of fighting. "
//****************************************************

Now will you please explain how this statement is equivalent to what
you said about Alan here:
Bob wrote:
//********************
"He (Alan) then left asd because "even those he considered to be his
friends here" wouldn't fork over the $20 it cost to buy his book. "
//*******************

Bob wrote:
> As Chris Malcolm put it so succinctly:
> "Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
> chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?"

Reply:
A good question from Chris and I gave a detailed reply. which is
obvious you haven't read (that where the references were).
If you were serious you could have responded to my response.

Ref

1.
Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalization of beta cell
function in association with decreased pancreas
and liver triacylglycerol

http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf


2.

Postgrad Med J 1973;49:203-209 doi:10.1136/pgmj.49.569.203

Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration
W. K. Stewart, Laura W. Fleming

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

[GysdeJongh]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
>> bj wrote:
>>> This strikes me as another one of those "Well, Duh...." studies.
>>> bj

> Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
> chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?

here is someone :

<http://tinyurl.com/coebfgz>

Gys

[Don Roberto]

On 6/7/2012 12:24 AM, ra...@val.com wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> "There I figured I quit returning righteous ranting Randy's insults
> to
> see if he too can refrain from personal verbal abuse.
> For once."
>
> "Fat freaking chance.
> Once again - nothing but insults, lots of getting lost in details,
> and
> nothing of practical value."
>
> Reply:
> Bull.
> My response was not insulting in the slightest

Of course not. Calling my recollections of why Alan left asd "bullshit"
isn't an insult.
As defined by redundant righteous ranting Randy.
Of course.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
...even if my recollections were *incorrect*, the word "bullshit"
suffices to warrant the label insult.
But redundant righteous ranting Randy isn't exactly anchored in the real
world, is he now?

(as anyone can see by
> reading the them),

It's not about "reading the them" *from you*, but Alan's words in his
thread about his book starting here:
http://tinyurl.com/77foeqh

And no, cherry-picking a couple of lines from a 150 posts spread over
several newsgroups doesn't prove anything except that you seem to have
serious comprehension problems.
Look up the meaning of the word "gist", the term "big picture", the
idiom about "not being able to see the forest for the trees".
Get the drift?

OTOH - there's always someone you've sucked up recently who's willing to
return the favor by backing your unbackables.

*That*, after all, is all that matters. Another reference point. Feels
soooooo good, doesn't it?

but corrections to your statements. And contrary
> to what you imply these weren't irrelevant details.
>
> Firstly I provided references to the fact that VLCD are generally safe
> and without complications contrary to your implication.
>
> Secondly I corrected your misstatement that fasting or eating lightly
> a couple of days a weeks is "yo-yo dieting" and unhealthy. Not only is
> this not yo-yo dieting, but it is health promoting. I even provided
> references which you acknowledged but degraded without supplying any
> reason.
>
> Bob wrote:
> " Even threw in a couple of paragraphs on how yours truly dealt with
> and
> licked the T2 beast. To counter redundant righteous ranting Randy's
> persistent claims that I not only do not contribute to asd
> discussions
> by responding to his copy and paste exercises in a manner approved by
> him, but also to counter his claims that I would not disclose how I
> deal
> with my diabetes."
>
> Reply:
>
> 1. And congratulations for that, but don't expect a medal for acting
> like an adult. Most folks here behave like that all the time.

Yeah. Like most doctors in the loony bin are crazy.

Your memory is way too selective to be jogged. I just proved that with
Alan's thread about his book. You'll just do your favorite dances again:
The Snip and the Twist. And you are right on top of it again. Right?

> I have hammered you on the continual mean spirited insults you in
> lieu of discussion of diabetes.

While your insults are *never* mean spirited because they are directed
only a people who have already insulted you by disagreeing with your
expert opinions.

In any case 1 or 2 exceptions in the
> year I've seen your post is far from stellar.
>

Might have something to do with the fact that where I come from keeping
mum beats arguing endlessly about things I have no clue of.
Unlike redundant righteous ranting Randy who can argue endlessly about
things because he is an expert at everything.
An expert without qualifications, but an expert nevertheless.

>
> Bob Wrote:
> "You ever get the idea that the predominant purpose of asd discussions
> isn't to endlessly compare and argue over minute details of studies
> "in
> scientific journals" - especially when some of the participants in
> the
> discussions refuse to disclose their qualifications - "
>
> reply:
> But Once again (and again) and I am not endlessly comparing and
> arguing over minute details of studies, but correcting misinformation
> you've provided.

Where redundant righteous ranting Randy get to determine what
constitutes misinformation, right?

> -Limiting calories a couple time a week is not yo- yo dieting and
> unhealthy -

But only because redundant righteous ranting Randy gets to determine the
definition of terms others use.

quite the contrary
> -And VLCD diets are not as dangerous and you implied.
>
> You think it's OK for you to source bad info but wrong to be
> corrected. AND - its not trivial!!
>
> Furthermore, I do not disrespect or deny the way others deal with
> their diabetes. My record is clear on this.
>

Heaven forbid calling a fool a fool!
Respect no matter what. What's a little dishonesty here and there?

After all - you never know when you need one or two of them to back your
unbackables.

Besides, you are busy enough already getting down on people who disagree
with the master who will only didclose his superior qualifications to
those who don't want to know.

>
> Bob wrote:
> " b) no one can maintain such a diet for a prolonged period."
>
> Randy replied:
> "Without a definition of a "prolonged period" your statement is
> meaningless."
>
> Bob writes:
> Only for those lacking common sense.
> Here are a couple of hints though: A "prolonged period" is definitely
> *longer than a minute*, and definitely *shorter than a millennium*.
>
> Reply:
> And that's absurd.

Only to those lacking common sense.

Do you ever think about the meaning of your words??

Yep, but the *real* ™©® question is...

> So after 1 minute of eating breakfast I'm on a "prolonged very low
> calorie diet until lunch and need supervision of a doctor??

...do *you* ever think about the meaning of *your* words. Like the one
making up the above "sentence"?

> You so hell bent on ridicule that you show how little concern for
> what's being discussed.
>

It may look like that from your corner of the psych ward, but
a) no one can ridicule what is ridiculous already, and
b) not everything you don’t understand expresses "little concern", to
paraphrase the little truth that not everything you don’t understand is
stupid.

> Randy Wrote:
> In the study referenced these folks ate 600 calories for 8 weeks - is
> that a "prolonged period"?
> Morbidly obese folks have been maintained on 0 calorie diets for 1
> year without issue.
>
> Bob Wrote:
>> Really? Any references for that?
>> Not that this is relevant for any practical purposes.
>
> Reply
> Your not paying attention (as usual). This sub-thread is based on a
> referenced study. It's obvious (past, and present) that you have no
> interest in discussing what's being discussed.
> Any way here's the reference again. [1] [2]
>

[1] has nothing to do with your claim that

"Morbidly obese folks have been maintained on 0 calorie diets for 1 year
without issue"

[2] seems to be about a 456 Scottish human lab rat kept alive on
vitamins, supplements and plenty of non-caloric liquids in 1973.
A lab rat who - being an outpatient most of the time - had of course
plenty of opportunity to cheat, if only by drowning his ordeal in a
ample doses of a good single malt.

Why does that make me think of Boris Karloff?

In any case, a classic case of anecDODEL evidence.
http://www.ostarrichi.org/oesterreich-2952-at-Dodel.html

BTW - *One* Scot does not add up "morbidly obese folks".


[more cherry-picking a couple of lines from a 150 posts spread over
several newsgroups to support redundant righteous ranting Randy's theory
of reality *SNIPPED*]

>
> Bob wrote:
>> As Chris Malcolm put it so succinctly:
>> "Is anyone surprised that dramatic improvements in the health of
>> chronic overeaters results from eating a lot less?"
>
> Reply:
> A good question from Chris and I gave a detailed reply.

Nothing like a detailed reply to a rhetorical question...

*Do* get some help!

which is
> obvious you haven't read (that where the references were).

I have now :-)
At least glanced at the one about the 456 Scottish lab rat.
Am in fact celebrating the bit from the useless information dept with a
double Glenfiddich on the rocks.

> If you were serious you could have responded to my response.
>

Right!

Don Roberto
---------------------
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.


EOD

[Don Roberto]

I am aware of that.
The 14 years since I figured out "What on earth I can eat" haven't been
quite as smooth as the 4 months following diagnosis.
I experimented a lot - you know, eat a little, eat a little more,
exercise a little, exercise a little more. Enter the data into an excel
workbook for analysis.
Learned that ye olde Adult Onset Diabetes is - at least in my case,
perhaps in most cases - very much a life-style disorder. Where
life-style is something we can do something about. As in the Gipper's
better half's words: "Just say no."

Anyway - so far, so good.
One of my advantages IMO is that I never was much into
sugary/starchy/sweet foods. *My* weakness is fat: a few slices of good
prosciutto and/or a wedge of fromage, just before it comes to live again
:-) will do me in.

Don Roberto
----------------------
Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence.
--Charles Darwin

[ra...@val.com]

Bob Wrote:
> Of course not. Calling my recollections of why Alan left asd "bullshit"
> isn't an insult.
> As defined by redundant righteous ranting Randy.
> Of course.
> Meanwhile, in the real world...
> ...even if my recollections were *incorrect*, the word "bullshit"
> suffices to warrant the label insult.

reply:
Don't like the word bullshit applied to Alan, fine - But your
statement was "bullshit" -.

Calling "shit" - "shit" is not an insult, it's true.

Would you please show how you justified what you said about Alan:

//********************
"He (Alan) then left asd because "even those he considered to be his
friends here" wouldn't fork over the $20 it cost to buy his book. "

//*******************************

Instead of claiming this is justified in the archives would you please
"cut and paste" the specifics that justify this.

Earlier when I requested justification you provided this quote from
Alan:
//********************

Alan wrote:
//*******************************
"I quit using ASD because I guess I was just too sensitive to some of
the rather vicious attacks I got. I am hoping that this group might
concentrate on dealing with the disease instead of fighting. "
//****************************************************

Sorry Bob that doesn't cut it.

The rest of your response was nothing more than -generalized ranting.
Your back to your preferred posting style of non-sense that cannot
even be countered.

As far as insults go - That's all you primarily do here and have done
here. If anyone doubts this, just go to the archives over the last
year and randomly select posts from Bob.

And your insults are Bullshit - cause they are not true. Telling folks
they "have no life" or "depth" and the like are crap. You keep these
attacks so generalized that folks don't bother to counter, but when
you slip by stating something specific, like your comment about Alan,
your exposed. But actually, I'm quite confident that folks here have
seen your post for what they are for years - insulting bullshit.

Randy

[Chris Malcolm]

Excellent image of am ENORMOUS fat cat!

But not *quite* as fat as it looks, due to the perspective distortion
of the wide angle lens used.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Chris Malcolm heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :

Two days ago: heard on the radio that a new record cat has emerged:
Garfield, weighing 21kg. His boss (? a cat has a servant :-)) had died,
now he is in animalcare getting a slow diet. A fat cat should never be
put on a quick diet, bad for the cat's liver.
M.

[GysdeJongh]

Hi Chris,
I agree. Finally got time to read the full manual of my Canon and take some
photographs :)

He (it think it's a "He") reminds me of one of our own cats. My youngest
daughter got him from the asylum. He belonged to a restaurant owner who
could nolonger employ him because he stole the meat from his customers.

In the beginning he refused to eat anything but rare cooked beef. Bit
expensive, so we slowly adjusted his lyfestyle and thus his bodyweight.

The baker once asked my daughter, who missed a carreer at Monty Python, "Can
I help you ?" and my daughter replied : "Hmmm I have a cat who was 'Helped'
and he did not look happy afterwards"

This very obese domestic cat reminded me also of this intriguing article
where the authors found that the obesity tsunami extends to the species we
have brought and care for in our environment :

Gys



Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 7;278(1712):1626-32.
Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of
obesity epidemics.

A dramatic rise in obesity has occurred among humans within the last several
decades. Little is known about whether similar increases in obesity have
occurred in animals inhabiting human-influenced environments. We examined
samples collectively consisting of over 20 000 animals from 24 populations
(12 divided separately into males and females) of animals representing eight
species living with or around humans in industrialized societies. In all
populations, the estimated coefficient for the trend of body weight over
time was positive (i.e. increasing). The probability of all trends being in
the same direction by chance is 1.2 � 10(-7). Surprisingly, we find that
over the past several decades, average mid-life body weights have risen
among primates and rodents living in research colonies, as well as among
feral rodents and domestic dogs and cats. The consistency of these findings
among animals living in varying environments, suggests the intriguing
possibility that the aetiology of increasing body weight may involve several
as-of-yet unidentified and/or poorly understood factors (e.g. viral
pathogens, epigenetic factors). This finding may eventually enhance the
discovery and fuller elucidation of other factors that have contributed to
the recent rise in obesity rates.
PMID: 21106594