3 ms·
I did say 'purported', and the BBC is basing their story on an case study from the Oxford Journal for infectious diseases, which was linked in the first paragra
by gingerrr 10y ago
I did say 'purported', and the BBC is basing their story on an case study from the Oxford Journal for infectious diseases, which was linked in the first paragraph of the article: http://ofid.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/ofv004.full http://ofid.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/ofv004.full.
Since you have an issue with the sample size, please point me to the nearest full-scale fecal transplant study done and I'll gladly use those results.
>in a person who was probably already eating a ton and not absorbing it much due to a massive infection.
Source? Let's not criticize others for their sources and then make unsupported drive-by claims.
edit: "article" --> "case study"
- wdewind 10y agoThere is some interesting stuff in that case study, but there is nothing we can generalize from it. That's the point. There are no full scale fecal transplant studies looking into obesity to my knowledge. > Source? Let's not criticize others for their sources and then make unsupported drive-by claims. You're right, but upon digging deeper into the study it's even worse: neither her, nor the person she took the fecal sample from, were obese at the time of transplant. Both became obese after the treatment. The source of the transplant was her daughter, so I can imagine a lot of environmental factors effecting both of them. It's hard to imagine the donor becoming obese because of the transplant... The point here is there are a TON of other obvious variables to examine, and gut flora may really play a role, but there is really not substantial evidence to think that's true. Regardless of if it is true, it doesn't change much for outcomes: you still have to eat less, you still have to workout more.