book recommendation

[paulawylma]

I just got finished reading "The healthy Skeptic: Cutting through the HYPE about Your Health" by Robert J. Davis. the third chapter is about diet books. He mentions a study by Jama where 160 people were put on 4 diets for a year (Adkins, the Zone, Ornish and Weight Watchers) and after a year all the dieters on Adkins had lost an avrage of only 5 lbs and the dieters on the other 3 diets only lost a pound or two more (6 to 7 lbs). Apparently, the diets were more successful after 3 months but most of the participants couldn't stay on the diets for the whole year and gained most of the weight back. Suddenly, the 1/2 lls a week on No S is sounding better and better, 26 lbs a year is certainly better than 5!

Also of interest to those of you who are only overweight and not obese--you might not want to lose any weight. Apparently maintaining a stable weight is healthier than losing weight if you are overweight but not obese. There hasn't been enough studies on obese people with stable weights to make a judgment about us. Davis didn't mention slow weight loss though. I don't know if any studies have been done on it, but if keeping your weight stable is the key to good health, then a half a pound a week probably qualifies as stable or if not, should be healthier than quicker weight loss. Davis does say that the studies don't make it clear on whether or not it's the losing weight that is dangerous or the yo-yo dieting.

The book also discusses how to separated the new stories you can believe from the ones that are only hype. He covers more than diet and nutrition--he covers all major health topics.

[BrightAngel]

He mentions a study by Jama where 160 people were put on 4 diets for a year (Atkins, the Zone, Ornish and Weight Watchers) and after a year all the dieters on Atkins had lost an avrage of only 5 lbs and the dieters on the other 3 diets only lost a pound or two more (6 to 7 lbs). Apparently, the diets were more successful after 3 months but most of the participants couldn't stay on the diets for the whole year and gained most of the weight back. Suddenly, the 1/2 lls a week on No S is sounding better and better, 26 lbs a year is certainly better than 5!

paulawylma,
I haven't read the book to which you refer,
but the study sounds similiar to the one which is presented in detail
by Christopher Gardner, of Stanford University Medical Dept.
I found his lecture on the study fascinating and entertaining.
It is on YouTube at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

Since that lecture there has been some follow-up research with that data
involving Genetics and low-carb diets vs. low-fat diets.
More about that in a recent article at the following link:
http://www.theheart.org/article/1053429.do

[wosnes]

I found this some time ago:

Lying with Statistics

Your doctor may tell you that by treating your high blood pressure with drugs you will cut your risk of a stroke almost in half. You think, “I’d be a fool to take that risk. If I don’t take the pills I will certainly have a stroke and the medication is unquestionably beneficial.â€

The truth is this:

If you have mild hypertension (diastolic – lower number – of 90 to 110 mmHg) your risk of a stroke over the next 5 years is 15 chances of every 1000 untreated patients (or 1.5 in a 100).1

If you take medication, then your risk for a stroke is 9 chances out of every 1000 treated patients for the next 5 years.

Now that is a relative risk reduction of 40% (15 - 9 / 15)1 – And if someone told you that you could reduce your risk of having a stroke by 40%, you might jump at the opportunity.

But in real life (absolute) numbers this is not so impressive. Consider that if you treat 1000 people with drugs for five years, the benefit is only six fewer strokes (15 vs. 9). In other words, by spending thousands of dollars and suffering the side effects (which may include impotency, weakness, or worse) you might reduce your absolute risk of having a stroke over the next five years by less than 1%. (Actually, the reduction is 0.6 in a hundred for five years, which calculates out to about one in a thousand fewer strokes per year of treatment.)

Unfortunately, I think the person who wrote this is just as likely to stretch the truth about what he advocates as anyone else!

I'm relying a lot more lately on my own common sense and what has worked throughout history.

There's an old saying that goes something like if we don't learn from history we're doomed to repeat it. Sometimes it's not a bad idea to repeat or do what others have done!

[Cassie]

I'm pretty sure (just following my common sense) that what's certainly unhealthy is yo-yo dieting. Losing weight (for overweight people) IF done correctly i.e. if done slowly, if weight loss is maintained, if exercise is added....is surely good. But certainly if it's a choice between maintenance of (over)weight versus constant putting on & losing on weight, the former is preferable.

[Graham]

Also of interest to those of you who are only overweight and not obese--you might not want to lose any weight. Apparently maintaining a stable weight is healthier than losing weight if you are overweight but not obese.

This is such a tricky issue! I was on the borderline of obese when I first had a go at dieting, now I'm within normal BMI range but still seriously "overwaist" - and it neither feels good nor looks good on me to be as I am now.

As I lose weight I feel better - more likely to go and do things like exercise or social dancing that will probably make me even healthier. I can't imagine anyone not feeling better when they lose lbs of excess fat, provided they have shed the weight gradually on a wholesome diet.

The payoff for getting slimmer isn't just about health statistics, it is the subjective increase in enjoyment of one's own body.

[Kathleen]

My sister told me of a book called Overdosing America in which the recommendation is to determine the NNT (net number to treat) rather than look at a percent decrease, which can be dramatic especially with a small sample size. This is exactly what is descibed in wosnes' post above. I'm a stay at home Mom, and I'm surprised by how many kids and adults are on some kind of medication -- adults with low dose antidepressents ands with ADHD.

My mother was on Fosomax, and she finally went off it because of side effects. My doctor wanted me to have a bone density test. I asked why. She said that she could then recommend a treatment. Well, I told her I wouldn't take Fosomax. She said there might be other treatments. I told her I already take calcium and exercise -- what other treatment options would there be? Personlly, I think universal healthcare is a bad idea for just this reason: someone profits by people taking prescription drugs. With universal healthcare, at least part of the cost for some people taking drugs will be transferred to taxpayers. I'd rather buy calcium pills out of pocket and skip the bone density test. Ultimately, medical care is a small part of healthcare. The best pill is exercise. As I read in one book, a saying from Ecuador is: "You have two doctors, your left leg and your right leg."

Kathleen

[wosnes]

My sister told me of a book called Overdosing America in which the recommendation is to determine the NNT (net number to treat) rather than look at a percent decrease, which can be dramatic especially with a small sample size. This is exactly what is descibed in wosnes' post above. I'm a stay at home Mom, and I'm surprised by how many kids and adults are on some kind of medication -- adults with low dose antidepressents ands with ADHD.

My mother was on Fosomax, and she finally went off it because of side effects. My doctor wanted me to have a bone density test. I asked why. She said that she could then recommend a treatment. Well, I told her I wouldn't take Fosomax. She said there might be other treatments. I told her I already take calcium and exercise -- what other treatment options would there be? Personlly, I think universal healthcare is a bad idea for just this reason: someone profits by people taking prescription drugs. With universal healthcare, at least part of the cost for some people taking drugs will be transferred to taxpayers. I'd rather buy calcium pills out of pocket and skip the bone density test. Ultimately, medical care is a small part of healthcare. The best pill is exercise. As I read in one book, a saying from Ecuador is: "You have two doctors, your left leg and your right leg."

Kathleen

There's another book called Selling Sickness by Roy Moynihan. In the prologue he says:

Thirty years ago the had of one of the world's best known drug companies made some very candid comments. Close to retirement at the time, Merck's aggressive chief executive Henry Gadsden told Fortune magazine of his distress that the company's potential markets had been limited to sick people. Suggesting he'd rather Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigley's. Gadsden said it had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people. Because then, Merck would be able to "sell to everyone." Three decades on, the late Henry Gadsden's dream has come true.

This series from the Seattle Times, Suddenly Sick is good, too.

[Kathleen]

wosnes,

This is so true. Drugs and surgeries are being positioned as propylactic -- in other words, to anticipate and head off problems in the future. Some women get mastectomies to prevent breast cancer. The book Overdosing America really put me on the alert for any potential recommendations for tests like bone density which is to determine if there is a problem and then propose treatment. I think it's better just to decide you are going to have problems unless you live a healthy lifestyle. That doesn't mean I don't have mammograms, because I do, but is it really necessary to have a bone density test so that you can find out you should exercise and take calcium pills?

The most touching story I can give regarding prescription drugs is about a little boy who is in my daughter Katie's class (going into 6th grade). What a cutie! He reminded me of Tommy when he was in kindergarten. The parents got divorced because the Mom was having an affair, the Mom is now living with the guy, and the father remarried and had another child by the new wife, who has a child by a previous marriage. The little boy was put on ADHD medication. He's pudgy, and sometimes he's sitting on the bench after school because Mom and Dad mixed up who was going to pick him up. He had such a sparkle. No longer.

Drugs have side effects. Period. No one said it better than Hippocrates centuries ago: "Let food be thy medicine."

I think I'll try to read the book you listed and those Seattle Times articles are interesting.

Kathleen