Sorry, but you’re simply incorrect about the facts. Pretending that this isn’t explicitly about weightloss when the article says as much in plain language makes me question whether or not you’re participating in this discussion in good faith. Yes it is in the context of treating diabetes, specifically the type caused by obesity, and the goal of the replacement diet is to address the obesity.
And I would once again ask for specific evidence about the effectiveness of government sponsored obesity interventions in the last 40 years. “They actually want to address the problem” is not evidence that they have done so or will anytime soon. The point of contention here is not their motivation or trustworthiness, but their effectiveness. Insisting that we “better understand the entire biochemistry of the body” is also not evidence of an effective obesity intervention.
Also extremely disingenuous to “shoo away” this point by saying they “actually get results”, when the only “results” you have provided are pasted paragraphs from this very article which only references short term testing on total meal replacement diets (which is not new information) that also acknowledges it hasn’t worked in the long term (which is also not new information).
I will say once again as I have said in literally every comment in this thread, since much of your criticism of my point seems to be dependent on ignoring this, that the problem here is not in what someone and their doctor decide to do together to treat their obesity. It’s a problem of public messaging and context. We simply can’t have headlines going around implying that shake and soup diets have achieved some advanced status considering the damage similar diet schemes have caused and continue to cause. The messaging needs to be done very carefully because we live in the real world where sensationalism can cause real harm.
It is literally explicitly about diabetes. Diabetes tends to overlap with obesity and they talk about it a bit, but it is literally explicitly about diabetes. The study if you follow the links is “Type 2 diabetes: etiology and reversibility”.
And yes I gave the results that they found. Why are you acting like that’s bad?
Messaging? Sure we can criticize click bait headlines, but sorry to say you are the one that jumped to 40 year old products and conflated them. And I’m the one saying don’t do that. I think I’m out of this conversation. I think I’ve explained it well enough.
I’m genuinely amazed that the hill you chose to die on is whether or not the weight loss studies, that specifically targeted obese patients, which measured their results in weight loss, with the stated goal of reversing diabetes via addressing obesity, are in fact about addressing obesity.
Studies, btw, not study. Lots of interesting stuff in this article if you actually bother to read it. Some of them even have obesity in the title, if that’s really the only important thing to you.
Anyway, your continued refusal to answer the question you are directly being asked is noted, as is your repetition of the false assertions I have already addressed. I wholeheartedly support your initiative to leave this conversation. Cheers
Sorry, but you’re simply incorrect about the facts. Pretending that this isn’t explicitly about weightloss when the article says as much in plain language makes me question whether or not you’re participating in this discussion in good faith. Yes it is in the context of treating diabetes, specifically the type caused by obesity, and the goal of the replacement diet is to address the obesity.
And I would once again ask for specific evidence about the effectiveness of government sponsored obesity interventions in the last 40 years. “They actually want to address the problem” is not evidence that they have done so or will anytime soon. The point of contention here is not their motivation or trustworthiness, but their effectiveness. Insisting that we “better understand the entire biochemistry of the body” is also not evidence of an effective obesity intervention.
Also extremely disingenuous to “shoo away” this point by saying they “actually get results”, when the only “results” you have provided are pasted paragraphs from this very article which only references short term testing on total meal replacement diets (which is not new information) that also acknowledges it hasn’t worked in the long term (which is also not new information).
I will say once again as I have said in literally every comment in this thread, since much of your criticism of my point seems to be dependent on ignoring this, that the problem here is not in what someone and their doctor decide to do together to treat their obesity. It’s a problem of public messaging and context. We simply can’t have headlines going around implying that shake and soup diets have achieved some advanced status considering the damage similar diet schemes have caused and continue to cause. The messaging needs to be done very carefully because we live in the real world where sensationalism can cause real harm.
It is literally explicitly about diabetes. Diabetes tends to overlap with obesity and they talk about it a bit, but it is literally explicitly about diabetes. The study if you follow the links is “Type 2 diabetes: etiology and reversibility”.
And yes I gave the results that they found. Why are you acting like that’s bad?
Messaging? Sure we can criticize click bait headlines, but sorry to say you are the one that jumped to 40 year old products and conflated them. And I’m the one saying don’t do that. I think I’m out of this conversation. I think I’ve explained it well enough.
I’m genuinely amazed that the hill you chose to die on is whether or not the weight loss studies, that specifically targeted obese patients, which measured their results in weight loss, with the stated goal of reversing diabetes via addressing obesity, are in fact about addressing obesity.
Studies, btw, not study. Lots of interesting stuff in this article if you actually bother to read it. Some of them even have obesity in the title, if that’s really the only important thing to you.
Anyway, your continued refusal to answer the question you are directly being asked is noted, as is your repetition of the false assertions I have already addressed. I wholeheartedly support your initiative to leave this conversation. Cheers