Losing Weight May Be More Harmful Than Being Overweight

Post by **tex** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:56 pm

Hi All,

Does that knock your hat in the creek, or what?

Perhaps this is at least part of the explanation for why people who lose weight, tend to gain it back, even when they try hard to prevent it. (It seems that Mother nature does indeed know best).

Long-term weight loss may release into the blood industrial pollutants linked to illnesses like diabetes, hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis, researchers said on Tuesday.

These compounds are normally stored in fatty tissues, but when fat breaks down during weight loss, they get into the blood stream

"We are living under the strong dogma that weight loss is always beneficial, but weight gain is always harmful...but we think that increased (pollutant) levels (in the blood) due to weight loss can affect human health in a variety of ways," she wrote in an email to Reuters.

Those who lost most weight over 10 years had the highest concentrations of the compounds, called persistent organic pollutants (POPs), compared to those who gained or maintained a steady weight.

"There is emerging evidence that POPs ... are not safe. POPs (are) linked to type 2 diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, periodontal disease," Lee said.

More studies were needed to establish if such harm outweighed the benefits to be gained from weight loss, Lee said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6861XV20100907

One thing is for sure, this is likely to be a very controversial topic, in the future, unless the medical community chooses to sweep it under the rug, (as they sometimes choose to do).

Tex

Polly · Post by **Polly** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:24 pm

Hi Tex,

I don't think it would be controversial. There is already a similar precedent. They have found that kids who experienced lead poisoning may have problems again as adults. Because the lead is stored in bones. Then, during aging (specifically with osteoporosis), the lead is released back into the bloodstream where is can damage organs, including the brain. I have heard speculation that some cases of dementia may actually be due to this mechansim.

Love,
Polly

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:51 pm

I've always believed losing weight is hard on the body. I suppose by losing weight a person might very well be trading in one set of problems for another. Bummer.

natythingycolbery · Post by **natythingycolbery** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:28 pm

I'm sure this had already been decided years ago, or at least I'm constantly getting told of for being skinny and losing weight....

Post by **tex** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:15 pm

Polly,

I can see that the mechanism is similar, but the liability risk is not. In the example that you cited, the adverse consequence is simply due to ageing, (IOW, it is not due to medical intervention, nor it is due to a medical recommendation). Clearly, no doctor is implicated in any legal liability issue.

With the diet issue, the patient is fine, so long as she or he doesn't decide to lose weight. It's the dietary intervention that sets the stage for adverse consequences. I can visualize a scenario where a doctor recommends a diet to an overweight, (but otherwise healthy), patient, and somewhere down the line, that patient develops diabetes, coronary heart disease, or whatever, and hires an ambulance-chasing lawyer, and wins a huge monetary award, because it should be pretty clear to any jury, that the doctor was irresponsible to recommend a diet, in view of the research that I cited. Now, we all know that being overweight typically imposes certain health risks, but that doesn't mean that everyone in that situation will suffer any of those health problems. It will be the jury's job to sort out the evidence, and reach a verdict, based on the evidence. The evidence, of course, will show that the patient was fine, until she or he followed that doctors advice, and lost weight. How would you vote, if you were on that jury? I rest my case.

Love,
Tex

natythingycolbery · Post by **natythingycolbery** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:48 am

Tex, I'm the exact opposite, or rather I was until I lost even more weight through MC, naturally underweight anyway but also I was healthy so until recently I have never been advised to gain weight. But I don't plan on suing anyone if I get ill, its not fair to take money of someone who makes no/little profit just to make life slightly easier for you.

starfire · Post by **starfire** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:27 am

"its not fair to take money of someone who makes no/little profit just to make life slightly easier for you."

That is commendable (in my opinion). My view also. However there seems to be a lot of people who don't share that view.

Love, Shirley

Polly · Post by **Polly** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:13 am

I can still see potential problems for the doc in the case of osteoporosis. The patient might claim that it wasn't diagnosed soon enough, or the doc did not recommend the appropriate vitamins/minerals/drugs to treat it, or, as the osteo developed, did not prescribe chelating agents to remove the lead from the bloodstream fast enough.

In the POP instance, it is interesting that the chemicals cause the same problems as obesity does....diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension. It would be almost impossible to determine the root cause of those symptoms.

If anyone is to be sued, how about the makers of those POPs?

Love,

Polly

natythingycolbery · Post by **natythingycolbery** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:59 am

starfire wrote:"its not fair to take money of someone who makes no/little profit just to make life slightly easier for you."

That is commendable (in my opinion).

Which bit? The not suing or making life easier for you?

Post by **tex** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:41 am

Polly wrote:If anyone is to be sued, how about the makers of those POPs?

Well, if doctors shouldn't be sued for bad advice, (and remember that advice and services are all that they have to offer), then why should some poor manufacturer be sued? That manufacturer is only trying to provide a product to make life easier for us. Unless that manufacturer intentionally adds something harmful to his product, why should he be any more liable than someone selling advice? POPs are all around us. In many/most locations, they exist naturally, and have nothing to do with any manufacturing process. (Obviously, many of them are byproducts of manufacturing processes, of course).

I'm not in favor of such suits, I'm merely reporting the opportunities that I foresee this research providing. If I had my way, most lawyers would be forced to work for a living, instead of spending their lives taking advantage of vulnerabilities allowed by civil law. Since most politicians are lawyers, when laws are passed, they always provide plenty of opportunity for the need for legal counsel. We have the foxes guarding the hen house.

No one with a law degree should be allowed to run for congress. And that sums up my thoughts on what is wrong at the very core of our government.

Tex

starfire · Post by **starfire** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:01 pm

- The not suing. Sorry about the murky statement.

Love, Shirley

grannyh · Post by **grannyh** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:04 pm

With the government about to collect the BMI from every citizen under Obamacare.. it puts us between a rock and a hard place... lose weight.. release harmful chemicals that may kill you. Don't lose weight and who knows what the government penalty will be...:)
grannyh

natythingycolbery · Post by **natythingycolbery** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:18 pm

starfire wrote: - The not suing. Sorry about the murky statement.

Love, Shirley

Tis alright,

I just get SO angry at people in the UK who sue the NHS (which is a free service... well kindof, we pay towards it via national insurance) for something going wrong, like for example, a gastric band killing someone, I mean yeah fair enough someone starved to death in there wish to lose weight that they have struggled to lose for years. But they were told of the risks involved and then still signed the consent forms. It annoys me even more when the win more than £50,000 out of court!

Yet I do understand suing for really idiotic negligence from a hospital.

I;m gonna shut up before i start a massive rant!

starfire · Post by **starfire** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:30 pm

"It annoys me even more when the win more than £50,000 out of court!"

Yeah, thats the kind of stuff I'm talking about. No matter what happens to some people it's always someone else to blame, even if they made their own informed decisions. I'll shut up now too!!

Love, Shirley

hoosier1 · Post by **hoosier1** » Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:20 am

Kind of off subject with the rants going on and discussion about national health care...but when my wife was terminally ill with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, and was receiving treatment in Texas (before finally having a successful bone marrow transplant at the Cleveland Clinic... they rock!), I counted more people from Canada and the UK in texas getting treatment than those from the US, like a 3 to 1 factor. The main complaint from those whom I met and befriended was the extended time to get treatment back home for complicated life threatening diseases, and what they called the lack of cutting edge treatments. I admit this is not a statistical survey, but a strong personal observation.

So I am mixed about national healthcare, and at this point in my life, am not interested in it. But I do believe, somehow that anyone in the world should have prompt access to the centers of excellence in the US like Mayo and Cleveland. The care they provide, having seen and experienced it first hand, is world class incredible, and we travelled the world looking for transplant centers. Just an FYI for anyone contemplating going to one of these centers.

By the way, my wife's donor is named Robin. He is a great man. She now has his blood type and their family has become an extended family of ours. Many blessings resulted from this incredible procedure. He, along with Dr. Pohlman of the Cleveland Clinic, saved her life.

So, in spite of everything, I have much to be thankful for inside the US healthcare system.

Rich