Having read the National Obesity Forum report (which was available free of charge) I would very much like to comment on this article, but I am not going to buy it for the price quoted.. My experience with diet indicates the NOF report is pretty much spot-on and that the 'old-fashioned' thinking that drives the nay-sayers will not survive for much longer, although I hope (perhaps against expectations) that the naysayers do manage to live to a ripe old age!
The basic thinking behind the report is not new. It was espoused by Atkins who very much acknowledged the work of British researchers from the - 1950's?? I adopted something very close to the Atkins diet some 12 years ago, and lost a good amount of weight over about 6 months. Nobody noticed, I put that down to my being 1.9m tall and not being too 'obviously' fat. Then, perplexingly, the weight came back on. It was only when the 'magic' was lost that I realised why: Atkins recommended avoiding fruit for the first stage of the diet, and, on cue, I had re-introduced fruit - such as an apple or two for lunch, that's all. But the fructose 'load' got me back up to the original weight, and a couple of kilos more, in about the same time-frame. Yes, we all know about the 'yo-yo' effect, but one of the strange things is that it was only when I got back to my original weight that people started to say I had lost weight - it was really very odd!! But the one-liner in section 5 about Fructose I believe understates the effect of Fructose: it's not neutral, and it appears that it is not 'neutralised' (as some claim - I think there is a reference to this somewhere in the report?) by the rest of what's in the apple. And, I have read that Fructose is disposed of by the liver in the same way as alcohol, all the downsides, just not the 'benefit'! And that cirrhosis of the liver is one of the downsides.
I am sure that there is more to be understood, and doubtless the science will continue to evolve, but, in the meantime, professional medics can do a lot of damage to many struggling people, who need and deserve to hear the truth, if they bury their heads in the sand and continue to push erroneous thinking.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
19 January 2018
Roger R Griffiths
Retired Engineer
Welding Technology Institute of Australia (President)
Rapid Response:
Re: National Obesity Forum report is flawed
Having read the National Obesity Forum report (which was available free of charge) I would very much like to comment on this article, but I am not going to buy it for the price quoted.. My experience with diet indicates the NOF report is pretty much spot-on and that the 'old-fashioned' thinking that drives the nay-sayers will not survive for much longer, although I hope (perhaps against expectations) that the naysayers do manage to live to a ripe old age!
The basic thinking behind the report is not new. It was espoused by Atkins who very much acknowledged the work of British researchers from the - 1950's?? I adopted something very close to the Atkins diet some 12 years ago, and lost a good amount of weight over about 6 months. Nobody noticed, I put that down to my being 1.9m tall and not being too 'obviously' fat. Then, perplexingly, the weight came back on. It was only when the 'magic' was lost that I realised why: Atkins recommended avoiding fruit for the first stage of the diet, and, on cue, I had re-introduced fruit - such as an apple or two for lunch, that's all. But the fructose 'load' got me back up to the original weight, and a couple of kilos more, in about the same time-frame. Yes, we all know about the 'yo-yo' effect, but one of the strange things is that it was only when I got back to my original weight that people started to say I had lost weight - it was really very odd!! But the one-liner in section 5 about Fructose I believe understates the effect of Fructose: it's not neutral, and it appears that it is not 'neutralised' (as some claim - I think there is a reference to this somewhere in the report?) by the rest of what's in the apple. And, I have read that Fructose is disposed of by the liver in the same way as alcohol, all the downsides, just not the 'benefit'! And that cirrhosis of the liver is one of the downsides.
I am sure that there is more to be understood, and doubtless the science will continue to evolve, but, in the meantime, professional medics can do a lot of damage to many struggling people, who need and deserve to hear the truth, if they bury their heads in the sand and continue to push erroneous thinking.
Competing interests: No competing interests