Is ther a television ad about toxic fat? From my understanding, from research about fasting, fat is a calorific storage system. The body extracts the fat from diet, filters toxins and stores it in a .999 form. In times of feast excess energy is stored on the body starting in the middle section for ease of carry. In times of famine it is then used as a quick, easy, clean, high source of energy. But when this system is not functioning properly, ie actually being stored then used I believe the fat can become toxic. This may be quack science but it seems to be logical.
You are right it is quack science. If the system does not function properly is also quack science so is the term toxins ? Read up the metabolic pathway called Beta-oxidation - that is the pathway of fatty acid metabolism to produce energy. As far as I am aware fat in the abdomen is identical in every way we can determine to fat anywhere else. So you need to understand the concept that fat is more "dangerous" in one area of the body compared to another is based on statistics. These stats are weak- very week. I will give you an example of how the stats game is played by the government and drug companies - all quack science. Let us look at heart attacks - we have no idea what causes coronary atheroma (basic pathology of heart attacks) Statins to lower cholesterol are portrayed by the media, medicos and government as life saving. The figure banded about is 20% of people on statins will be saved. They get to that figure like this. You have 2000 men with high cholesterol. 1000 go on statins and 1000 have nothing. At some time in the future 10 men from the untreated group have heart attacks while 8 from the treated group have heart attacks. So they say the benefit is 20%. In reality only 2 in 1000 have benefited which is not 20% but 0.2%. Then you add in side effects cost and the fact that more men in the treated group died of other causes ?cancer, stroke. Then it does not look too good - so they tell you its 20%. That statin data is strong compared to the BS data they throw up on fat distribution. I will give you another thing to consider. Gastric operations to make people loose weight is effective in weight reduction but if you follow these people up long term the weight loss does not reduce their mortality rate or increase their life expectancy. So when this study was released the spin doctors had to change their story on what is a very lucrative part of medicine. No longer do we do the operation to save your life but to make you feel better about yourself. hahahaha Spin is spin is spin.
There are many reasons why a doctor may preclude someone from having surgery. If a person is excessively overweight, a surgeon has the right to deny them surgery. I have friends who are registrar surgeons and they have told me senior surgeons have written on patient's notes: too fat to operate. Why? Because there are inherent risks which significantly outweigh any benefits. If the person is too fat, it can be really difficult to intubate and ventilate them to get a good airway, it can also be extremely difficult wadding through the fat to get to the organ that you want, not to mention that certain pharmacokinetics and dynamics of drugs alter with obesity (calculating drug dosages become difficult in fatter people, as some lipid soluble drugs equilibriate faster than normal due to the increased adiposity). Also, the logistics in doing an intra-abdominal operation in morbidly obese people is extremely difficult. I'm sure you've heard many stupid things, but it makes you equally stupid if you can't be bothered looking it up in google.
Yes fat anywhere on the body is the same but it is stored in the middle so it is closer to the centre of gravity, like when you go for a bushwalk you don't strap your food, water and equiptment to your arms and legs, you attach it to your middle section via a backpack. Personally I don't go to a doctor for anything unless I require machanical work ie something cut off or out or something stitched up or sewn back on. I treat myself as my own doctor, and I have never been healthier Used to be reliant on antibiotics to treat the lung infection that followed every cold, since childhood, of which there were many, until I discovered raw garlic and now I just get colds once a year and no infections. I did smoke though so that may have been responsible as well. I don't trust medication, but wouldn't rule it out completely, nature serves best most of the time.
Why don't we educate people, it is cheaper and stays with them to life, gives the future generation the information to make the healthy choices?
I'm pretty sure if we have a very good understanding of the pathophysiology of coronary atheroma. To deny so is just sheer ignorance. Perhaps it's a bit over your head (hence your denial), so let me dumb it down for you: Our vascular tree is composed of an orchestra of cells, which work together and have designated functions. Arteries are composed of multiple layers - the first layer is known as the endothelial layer; it is a thin, single sheet of cells which maintain vascular integrity and homeostasis of the vascular unit. Underneath that layer is a collection of muscle cells and elastic tissue, which provide elastic recoil to arteries (helps in maintaining blood pressure). External to that layer is a layer of connective tissue, which holds everything in place. Endothelial cells are particularly finicky; exposure to chemical insults (smoking, high sugar in diabetes, elevated lipid levels) or decreased laminar flow often promotes endothelial dysfunction. This results in pro-inflammatory state; increased cytokine production (signalling molecules for inflammatory cells), increased adhesion molecules (attachment points for inflammatory cells to adhere to), increased barrier permeability, and decreased anti-thrombotic properties (i.e. the endothelial site is more prone to clotting). Now that the endothelial barrier has been compromised, LDL's (low density lipoproteins or a type of fat) which are naturally floating around in the circulation are able to penetrate past the endothelial layer and attach to proteins within the extracellular matrix (the space underneath the endothelial cells, filled with proteins and substances which help in their survival). These LDL's - due to the pro-inflammatory state created by chemical toxins or even high blood pressure! - can become oxidised and are seen as "foreign" by inflammatory cells. This causes further cytokine release, signalling T-cells and macrophages (inflammatory cells) to invade the arterial wall, in an attempt to digest the oxidised LDLs. The subsequent events - which I cannot bother to detail, google can do that for you - leads to the formation of an atheroma. So in case that was tl;dr - to sum up in one sentence, we have a very good understanding of what causes coronary atheroma. Shits me to tears when people write shit they have no idea about!
Listen to you - calm down haha. You outline google searches on hypothetical possible mechanisms - all of which are mumbo-jumbo at this point in time. Not one of which have been proven. It is like me telling you about my ideas for faster than light speed. Interesting ...? Unproven! Please do not tell me what I do and don't have any idea of. This is a subject I know a bit about. For starters I have spent 25 years in this field. Please don't tell me about fat that doctors have to cut through and surgical issues - I am fully aware of those issues. Profanity is not impressive either. I think you in the words of Peter Schiff you need to stop drinking the kool aid.
Just to give you another theory on atheroma from a mate of mine Alan Shor- nothing to do with lipids ? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500974/
If you are fully aware of these issues, then why question the reasoning for which doctors refuse to operate on an overly obese person?? And technically you are right - it's not entirely proven, but then again nothing in science is. They are all best estimations for our observations, but considering we can correlate cause and effect (retrospective studies come to mind) then I'm pretty sure we've got a good grasp on a lot of the science.
Like I've said before, these are best estimations for our observations. Obviously, we're not going to completely understand everything, but we have a good grasp on causality. Even though there may also be an infective etiology involved with atheroma, you cannot deny that there is a strong correlation to other factors such as smoking and diabetes. To completely go one way is a bit far fetched - like with most diseases, the pathophysiology is quite complex and involves a concerted interplay between multiple variables. Case in point - an infective etiology has also been proposed for rheumatoid arthritis. Yet, there has been numerous cohort studies showing that the relative risk for smokers developing RA lies between 1.5 - 3.5. The presence of anti-CCP is a strong indicator for RA, and is highly associated with smokers. Now, we don't fully understand the mechanisms behind RA - yet, this doesn't preclude doctors from making educated treatment plans for their patients (i.e. cut down on smoking or cease entirely). Should they not advise patients, because according to you, everything is just theory?
Perhaps before you make comments like these it might be beneficial to have some inkling of who you are talking to and their qualifications.
Agreed - it's a two way street. It may be prudent to extend that courtesy to others on the forum as well, others may in fact work in the medical field too.
Absolutely, it can save embarrassment in the future. I was gently suggesting that there are many very smart and qualified people here and it's best to keep personal slights out of it. I don't exclude myself from this advice too, sometimes a cheap shot is tempting but I always regret it later.
Whilst impossible to comprehend (no matter the time in history) for most people, there are corruptions within science. History largely provides no lessons in this regard for an arrogant scientific community. The "leopard's spots" have not has changed since the days of Ignaz Semmelweis whom suggested doctors wash their hands. Theories and assumptions can get passed as factual. Society is complicated, IMO. Little is understood to this day about various pathologies to this day. I'm personally watching with interest as a particular major medical fraud slowly get exposed (not smoking related). I'm hopeful that in 20 years or so, the particular fraud will be recognised and accepted so science can advance. These are the dark ages for science, IMO. The thread topic is tricky (it comes down to affordability) among many aspects. There are many analogies to smoking. Imagine a society where everyone smokes and everyone is obese.
Drinking 2L water a day? Throaties/Strepsils for the 99%? An apple a day? What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger? The addition of volatile metals* to everyday food? Antioxidents propaganda? * i.e. NaCl
:O How dare they spray metal chlorides onto our precious grapes for human consumption! Ban all volatile metals in human foods now dammit! Haven't we learned anything since the Romans? Do you know that even our "organic" farmers put lots of Dihydrogen monoxide into ALL of their food products. Seriously!
