meizitangzisu

Economics may also be called the dismal science, however the study of weight loss is nearly as dreary.

A current story within this newspaper, however, appeared to offer a morsel of hope when its headline declared: "Study: Quick weight loss Just as Good." Or, every bit as good as the long slog of Pai You Guo what is also known as a sensible diet. At first glance, that finding ran counter to conventional wisdom dating back to when doctors still made house calls. Extreme measures produced quick losses, it was often said, but most dieters would slowly -- or rapidly -- gain it all back, and maybe a pinch more.

The Los Angeles Times story, based on a report within the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal, looked at a long-term clinical trial around australia. Half of the 200 participants were randomly assigned to a strict diet that substituted Optifast shakes for 3 meals daily. Their goal ended up being to lose 15 percent of their body weight in 12 weeks. The others were inspired to drink shakes once or twice a day, and then eat healthy meals for the rest. This group aimed for a 15 percent reduction over 36 weeks.

The extreme diet produced better initial results, with 81 percent nearly reaching their goal, and only 62 percent of the plodders matching them. The rapid dieters had fewer dropouts, presumably because 36 weeks is, by any measure, a long time to become good.

The researchers then followed some of the weight losers for another 144 weeks. Based on the Los Angeles Times story, only six didn't gain back any weight. The extreme dieters, who'd lost on average more than 32 pounds, gained back 23. The gradual losers had dropped 31.5, but gained back 22.

The main difference between the two groups was minor, which might be seen as an victory for the extreme dieters except for this: "In the end,'' the story said, "both approaches ultimately did a poor job of helping people slim down inside a sustainable way." They concluded: "A technique to suppress hunger after weight loss and therefore prevent weight gain -- continues to be awaited."

Because of the obesity epidemic in our country, which carries major costs in health care dollars and excellence of life, we wonder why such a technique is not more aggressively sought. May be the impediment the food processors, the fast-food industry, sweet tooths among people in Congress?

When we were built with a surgeon general -- Senate Republicans, aided by numerous nervous Democrats, have blocked the nomination of Vivek Murthy because, apparently, the NRA didn't like his view that gun violence is a public health threat -- he or she may speak to the problem. (And definitely he or she would be handy amid the jitters concerning the Ebola threat.)

But fighting such nominations -- and even going so far as to mock first lady Michelle Obama's tries to encourage children to Paiyouji Plus create healthier diet -- are the order of the day for the right wing. Its long-term strategy is to assert that government cannot provide solutions, and then do everything in the capacity to make it so.

We feel the flaws of that strategy will reveal themselves to voters in the long run, but because for sustained weight loss, we're reduced in the short term to hope against hope.