From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg)
Subject: Re: Adiposity 101
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:29:18 GMT

In article <17939@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.105556.8340@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) writes:
>
>>No.  I mean items in Adiposity 101 such as the one-liner:
>>"Adipocyte Hyperplasia: Excessive number of fat cells, as much
>>as ten times normal.", without adequately explaining the
>>significance of fat cell number.
>>
>Hey, I knew what you were talking about.  You said that there were
>new methods that did not increase hyperplasia by 10%, and I said
>I had never heard of any such method where hyperplasia was
>assessed.  Certainly the work with fenfluramine did not include
>biopsies did it?  Not that I am accepting that cycle dieting
>increases it, since there is no human study that shows that it does.

The papers describing surgical fat removal usually report
permanent weight reduction.  There have been anecdotal reports
of weight increase after love handle removal, but these may have
involved previous dieting.  I am unaware of any reports of
weight rebound caused by fat removal surgery itself - perhaps
Gordon has some documentation he can share with us????????

As stated in Adiposity 101, the potential long term effects of
immunological manipulation on fat cell numbers in obese subjects
with adipocyte hyperplasia are unknown.  It hasn't been tried
yet, but may be effective in reversing diet induced hyperplasia.

The question of fenfluramine induced lowering of set point and
fat cell numbers remains purely speculative.  Weight loss
related to set point lowering may not increase fat cell numbers.
Furthermore, fenfluramine seems to lower insulin levels; since
insulin seems to be required for fat cell proliferation,
fenfluramine may be protective.  The primary appeal of
fenfluramine is suppression of weight cycling by chronic
treatment; a single 5% increase in fat cell numbers is
preferable to multiple, compounded 10% increases.

The Bjorntorp and Sjostrom study discussed in Adiposity 101
shows a diet induced increase in fat cell numbers in human
subjects.  Those who flame *me* for ignoring studies I don't
agree with should follow up the references in Adiposity 101
before stating what does and does not exist.

>
>>Steve, you (and others) seem convinced I am excluding relevant,
>>high quality obesity research from Adiposity 101 that doesn't
>>"tell me what I want to hear".  Could you be specific?  Please
>>discuss specific papers, we've had enough vague generalizations.
>>
>
>Every time I mention one you say "oh, I knew about it, but
>it is pure crap" or something like that.  I'm sure you do
>know about them.  You just find any paper you don't agree
>with to be crap.

I haven't referred to any of the papers Gordon brought up in
scatological terms.  I leave that language to the professionals.

In each instance, without exception, I have shown the flaws or
irrelevance of the papers Gordon cited.

-- 
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX          ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf 
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
  Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406
Newsgroups: sci.med