3 ms·
We have many unsuccessful treatments that work for a small percentage of patients. That's why we measure treatments by effectiveness rather than identifying exi
by matthewdgreen 4y ago
We have many unsuccessful treatments that work for a small percentage of patients. That's why we measure treatments by effectiveness rather than identifying existence proofs that it worked for someone.
- nradov 4y agoYou're really missing the point. Every patient is unique. That's why competent healthcare providers take a step therapy approach and try cheaper, lower-risk treatments first before moving on to more expensive and riskier medication or bariatric surgery.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoYou seem to have misread my posts as saying that healthcare providers should immediately move to medication rather than try dietary intervention. I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, I didn't even think it. What I did say is that we are increasingly learning that overeating is a very complex and life-threatening medical concern that often cannot be solved through dietary intervention. Even people who may die if they don't adhere to a diet frequently have difficulty adhering to one. Saying that there are "existence proofs" that diets sometimes they work is a terrible response. My view is that we should treat diet as one possible medical treatment, and evaluate it apples-to-apples (in terms of efficacy and side effects) against more recent FDA-approved treatments. And now that we've seen how much impact those treatments can have -- and particularly how critical the GLP-1 mechanism is to the sustainability of weight-loss interventions -- we should work our asses off to find more and better treatments that treat overeating as a health condition rather than a question of mind-over-matter. You seem extremely attached to your position, to the point where defending your position required you to declare that my relatives "were eating a bunch of other stuff when you weren't looking."