Podcasts about itrim

Om Shownotes ser konstiga ut (exempelvis om alla länkar saknas. Det ska finnas MASSOR med länkar) så finns de på webben här också: https://www.enlitenpoddomit.se    Avsnitt 474 spelades in den 24 september och därför så handlar dagens avsnitt om: INTRO: - Alla har haft en vecka... Johan konstaterar att det kanske inte är Davids fel att vi ibland är sena, lagat en klätterställning, skrivit presentationer, övertuyget en person att laga en backspegel, och signat upp sig på iTrim. Björn har påbörjat saker, men inte avslutat nått.   - BONSULÄNK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB  ALLMÄNT NYTT - Cards against humanity stämmer space x (helt orelaterad men väldigt många beröringspunkter)   https://feber.se/samhalle/cards-against-humanity-stammer-spacex/472085/  - Språkforskning läggs ner. För språket är gjort av AI nu…   https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/20/1745236/project-analyzing-human-language-usage-shuts-down-because-generative-ai-has-polluted-the-data  - Logitech Släpper konkurrent till Stream Deck   https://www.engadget.com/computing/accessories/logitech-mx-creative-console-review-an-affordable-entry-point-into-edit-panels-070101321.html  - Orsaken till varför Sonos f*ckade upp sin app… En Jurist förklarar… Typ….    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-09-23/how-sonos-botched-an-app-and-infuriated-its-customers? accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyNzEzNzgzMiwiZXhwIjoxNzI3NzQyNjMyLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSzlKWVJEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJFQTExNDNDNTM4NEE0RUY5QTg5RjJEN0IxMTg2MzcwOSJ9.iR-CysWIxrmUB5-l_3ynsh2KIFsMyqWumT9zF5uyb6A  - Tydligen öppnade MS Pandoras box   https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-s10-ai-key-3483649/  LYSSNARFRÅGA: - Fått mail från Lennart som vill ha klistermärken (han hälsar att han är en av "AndersEffektDeltagarna".  Så klart han ska få klibbor. :) DISKUSSION: - Recension: OnePlus Open   https://blog.johanpersson.nu/2024/09/21/review-oneplus-open/  MICROSOFT - Detta är ju coolt… när kommer det I klient OS? (Tips från Excalibur)   https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/windows-server-2025-hotpatching-in-public-preview-installs-security-updates-without-restarts/  - Å appropå Patchar så meddelades i veckan att Microsoft slutar vidarutveckling av WSUS   https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/23/1957225/microsoft-ends-development-of-windows-server-update-services  APPLE - Apple och google har olika åsikter om fotografering   https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/09/18/1851258/apple-and-google-diverge-on-photography-philosophy    - BONUSLÄNK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1tuiOyePOg  GOOGLE: - Gemini för Workspace Users   https://www.thurrott.com/a-i/310083/google-makes-its-standalone-gemini-app-available-with-workspace-plans  - Google Höjer priset på Youtube Premium... ganska mycket   https://swedroid.se/youtube-premium-kostar-nu-149-kronor-i-manaden/  TIPS: - Lyssna på intervjun med Mark Suckerberg i "Aquired"   https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/the-mark-zuckerberg-interview    - Här är en del av vad han sa: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/20/177213/zuckerberg-says-apples-culture-is-not-like-metas  PRYLLISTA - Björn:  Jag behöver inte en sång här på NÅTT SÄTT!!! Men ändå så villhöver jag en.. ' https://rode.com/en/interfaces-and-mixers/rodecaster-series/rodecaster-video  - Johan: TCL nxtpaper tablet , https://www.amazon.se/TCL-NXTPAPER-NXTVISION-Android-8000mAh/dp/B0C3MG289R  EGNA LÄNKAR - En Liten Podd Om IT på webben,      http://enlitenpoddomit.se/  - En Liten Podd Om IT på Facebook,      https://www.facebook.com/EnLitenPoddOmIt/  - En Liten Podd Om IT på Youtube,      https://www.youtube.com/enlitenpoddomit  - Ge oss gärna en recension    - https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/en-liten-podd-om-it/id946204577?mt=2#see-all/reviews      - https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/en-liten-podd-om-it-158069  LÄNKAR TILL VART MAN HITTAR PODDEN FÖR ATT LYSSNA: - Apple Podcaster (iTunes), https://itunes.apple.com/se/podcast/en-liten-podd-om-it/id946204577  - Overcast, https://overcast.fm/itunes946204577/en-liten-podd-om-it  - Acast, https://www.acast.com/enlitenpoddomit  - Spotify, https://open.spotify.com/show/2e8wX1O4FbD6M2ocJdXBW7?si=HFFErR8YRlKrELsUD--Ujg%20  - Stitcher, https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-nerd-herd/en-liten-podd-om-it  - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/enlitenpoddomit  LÄNK TILL DISCORD DÄR MAN HITTAR LIVE STREAM + CHATT - http://discord.enlitenpoddomit.se  (Och glöm inte att maila bjorn@enlitenpoddomit.se  om du vill ha klistermärken, skicka med en postadress bara. :) 

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!The American Academy of Pediatrics has put out a new Clinical Guideline for the care of higher-weight children. This document is 100 pages long including references and there are so many things that are concerning and dangerous in it that I had trouble deciding how to divide it up to write about it. I began on Thursday with a piece about the undisclosed conflicts of interest. Ultimately for today, I decided to focus on what I think will do the most harm in the guidelines, which is the recommendations for body size manipulation of toddlers, children, and adolescents through intensive behavioral interventions, drugs, and surgeries.A few things before we dive in. First, this piece is long. Really long. I thought about breaking it up to make it easier to parse, but I also know that people are (rightly) very concerned about these guidelines and I didn't want to trickle information/commentary out over days and weeks in case it might be helpful to someone now. Also, know that this may be emotionally difficult to read, in particular for those who have been harmed by weight loss interventions foisted on them as children. That will likely be exacerbated by the gaslighting these guidelines do to erase the lived experience of harm and trauma from the “interventions” they are recommending, and from their co-option of anti-weight-stigma language to promote weight loss. So please take care of yourself, you can always take a break and come back. Per my usual policy I will not link to studies that are based in weight bias and the weight loss paradigm, but will provide enough information for you to Google if you want to read them. I'll also use an asterisk in “ob*sity” for the reasons I explain in the post footer. Ok, big breath and let's get into this.In later newsletters, I'll address other issues in depth, but for now here are some quick thoughts and links about overarching issues before I dig into the actual recommendation:The claim that “ob*sity is a chronic disease—similar to asthma and diabetes”No, it's really not. And it's this faulty premise (that having a body of a certain size is the same thing as having a health condition with actual identifiable symptomology) that underlies everything in these guidelines. The diagnosis of asthma requires documentation of signs or symptoms of airflow obstruction, reversibility of obstruction (improvement in these signs or symptoms with asthma therapy) and no clinical suspicion of an alternative diagnosis. The diagnosis of diabetes requires a glycated hemoglobin (A1C) level of 6.5% or higher. But to diagnose “ob*sity” you just need a scale and a measuring tape. A group of people with this “diagnosis” don't have to share any symptoms at all, they simply have to exist in their bodies. That is not the same as asthma or diabetes, though the weight loss industry (in particular pharmaceutical companies and weight loss surgery interests) have absolutely poured money into campaigns to try to convince us that it is. (Note that the argument that ob*sity is correlated with other health conditions and thus is a disease actually proves the fallacy since some kids/people who are “diagnosed” with “ob*sity” don't have any of those health conditions and some kids/people who are thin do have them. It's especially disingenuous as it ignores the confounding variables of weight stigma and, in particular, weight cycling both of which these guidelines, if adopted, are very likely to increase.)The myth of “non-stigmatizing ob*sity care” Like so much of these guidelines, this idea and much of the verbiage around it mirrors that of the weight loss industry. In this case, it's attempt to co-opt the language of anti-weight-stigma in order to promote (and profit from) weight loss (there's a guide to telling the difference between true anti-stigma work and diet industry propaganda here!) In truth, there is no such thing as non-stigmatizing care for ob*sity, because the concept of ob*sity is rooted in size and the treatment is changing size (the word was made up to pathologize larger bodies, based on a latin root that literally means to eat until fat so…less science than stereotype there.) There is no shame in having a disease, it's just that existing while fat isn't one. The concept of “ob*sity” as a “disease” pathologizes someone's body size. The concept of ob*sity says that your body itself is wrong, and requires intensive therapy and/or risky drugs and surgeries so that it can be/look right. There is no way to say that without engaging in weight stigma.If someone claims that the treatment is actually about health and not size, then it's not “ob*sity” treatment since both the criteria for the “disease” and the measure of successful “treatment” of ob*sity are based on body size. If the treatment is about health and not size, then the treatment and measures of success should be about actual metabolic health, not body size (which would be ethical, evidence-based, weight-neutral care.)The idea that “It is important to recognize that treatment of ob*sity is integral to the treatment of its comorbidities and overw*ight or ob*sity and comorbidities should be treated concurrently”Again, I think this is demonstrably untrue. Any health issues that are considered “comorbidities” of being higher-weight are also health issues that thin people get, which means that they have independent treatments. We could skip body size manipulation attempts entirely and still treat any health issues that a higher-weight child/adolescent has.The dubious claim that “ob*sity treatment” is compatible with eating disorders preventionI wrote a specific piece about this here. Weight loss as a “solution” to weight stigmaThis is unconscionable. Regardless of what someone believes about weight and health, the message that children (as young as 2!) should solve stigma by undertaking intensive and dangerous interventions that risk quality of life moves beyond inappropriate to disgusting, especially when one is perpetuating weight stigma, as these guidelines (and the weight loss industry talking points that are repeated herein) do.There is so much more to unpack here, but I want to move into a discussion of the recommendations themselves.For this, I will start where I left off on the conflict of interest piece. Which is to say, almost all of the authors of these guidelines are firmly entrenched in the body-size-as-disease paradigm. They have pinned their careers to it. None of the authors are coming from a weight-neutral paradigm.  In fact, in the research evaluation methodology section, they explain that they excluded studies that looked at impacting health, rather than weight. In their own words:The primary aim of the intervention studies had to be examination of an ob*sity prevention (intended for children of any weight status) or treatment (intended for children with overw*ight or ob*sity) intervention. The primary intended outcome had to be ob*sity, broadly defined, and not an ob*sity comorbidity.Note that by “ob*sity comorbidity” they mean a health condition that happens to children of all sizes.I don't know if it was intentional, or just a myopic focus on body size manipulation as a supposed healthcare intervention, but the option to focus on health rather than size was specifically excluded by a group of authors whose careers on based on focusing on size.There are three main areas of their recommendation that I'll talk about today - Intensive Health Behavior and Lifestyle Treatment, Weight Loss Drugs, and Weight Loss Surgeries.RECOMMENDATION:  Intensive Health Behavior and Lifestyle Treatment (IHBLT)This is recommended starting as young as age two. That's right, they are recommending intensive interventions to kids in diapers (and they think that they should look into how to “diagnose” kids who are even younger, yikes!) What these guidelines subtly admit is that these interventions don't actually work. They include this (long-time weight loss industry) talking point “a life course approach to identification and treatment should begin as early as possible and continue longitudinally through childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, with transition into adult care.”The translation to this is that they have absolutely no idea how to make higher-weight people of any age thin long-term. They are aware (and if not they are negligent) that a century of data shows that the vast majority of people will lose weight short-term and gain it back long-term. What they seem to be trying to do here is rebrand yo-yo dieting (aka weight-cycling) as a successful intervention. If there is a prize for moving the goalpost and declaring victory, they are in the running.Don't just take my word for it, they created a graphic as part of Figure 1 to show it:Pro tip: When they say “relapsing remitting” they mean “yo-yo dieting". I know why the weight loss industry loves this idea - it's how they've built a business that creates exponential growth with a product that doesn't work. What I don't understand is how this group of authors can possibly justify this ethically. The health risks of weight cycling are documented (and very consistent with the health risks that get blamed on higher-weight bodies) so setting people up for weight cycling starting as toddlers does not, to me, have the ring of sound science or ethical, evidence-based medicine.Let's dig into the evidence they are using to support this:The guidelines claim that “IHBLT is the foundational approach to achieve body mass reduction or the attenuation of excessive weight gain in children. It involves visits of sufficient frequency and intensity to facilitate sustained healthier eating and physical activity habits.” The study they cite to back this up (Grossman et al; 2017, Screening for ob*sity in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement) says “Comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions (≥26 contact hours) in children and adolescents 6 years and older who have ob*sity can result in improvements in weight status for up to 12 months.”They also include a chart of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2005-2017. The combined study population of all seven studies was just 1,153 kids. The largest study (with 549 participants) and the only study to include children from ages 2 to 5 had a duration of 12 months and showed a BMI change of 0.42 that year, and was only “effective” (if you consider a .42 change in a year “effective”) in kids ages 4-8 years old. There was only one study that followed up for more than 12 months, and from 12 months to 24 months, the BMI change decreased (from 3.3 to 2.8,) consistent with the weight regain pattern that we would expect.This will be a running theme in these guidelines - short-term studies will be used to justify life-long recommendations, and weight regain is ignored. In general, sometimes this is based on the idea that if a weight loss intervention works short-term, then it will continue to work forever, other times it's based on the idea that weight cycling is an ethical, evidence-based healthcare intervention. Again, the data on both the long-term failure of weight loss and the danger of weight cycling does not support this.They make a point to mention that IHBLT “involves interaction with pediatricians and other PHCPs who are trained in lifestyle-related fields and requires significantly more time and resources than are typically allocated to routine well-child care.” At this point I'll note that many of the authors of the guidelines run clinics or have practices that provide exactly this type of care.Their criteria for the studies was, I'll just call it lax: “Over a 3-12 month period: The criteria for the evidence review required a weight-specific outcome at least 3 months after the intervention started.” Obviously, this is a very short-term requirement and, again, excludes studies that looked at actual health instead of just body size.Here again they tell on themselvesTreatments with duration longer than 12 months are likely to have additional and sustained treatment benefit. There is limited evidence, however, to evaluate the durability of effectiveness and the ability of long-term treatments to retain family engagement.Note that the idea that longer duration treatment is “likely” to have additional and sustained treatment benefit is not remotely an evidence-based statement, and I would argue that it is biased and should not be included here. Also, they seem to be setting the stage for blaming families for the entirely predictable and almost always inevitable weight regain.Under “referral strategies” they get real about how little weight loss we're actually talking about:Pediatricians and other Primary Healthcare Providers (PHCP's) are encouraged to help to set reasonable expectations for these [BMI-based] outcomes among families, as there is a significant heterogeneity to treatment response and there is currently no evidence to predict how individual children will respond. Many children will not experience BMI improvement, particularly if their participation falls below the treatment threshold.”As described in the Health Behavior and Lifestyle Treatment section, those who do experience BMI improvement will likely note a modest improvement of 1% to 3% BMI percentile decline.So they are recommending an “intensive,” time-consuming, expensive intervention to kids starting as young as age 2 with no prognostics as to which kids might be “successful,” the stated result of which is that “many” (their word) of them won't experience any change in the primary outcome, those who do will see a very small change.They do mention the supposed actual health benefits of these interventions, but fail to mention that the health benefits may have nothing to do with the very small change in size. That's because often when health changes and weight changes (at least temporarily) follow behavior change, those who are invested in the weight loss paradigm (financially, clinically, or both) are quick to credit the weight change, rather than the behavior change, for the health change. Here again, the evidence does not support this. It's very possible that these same health improvements could be achieved with absolutely no focus or attention paid to weight, which would provide more benefits and less risks (including the risks associated with both weight stigma and weight cycling.) It could also allow the children (some, remember, still in diapers) to create healthy relationships with food and movement, rather than seeing choices around food and movement as punishment for their size or a way to manipulate it.As they move into specific recommendations, they start with:Despite the lack of evidence for specific strategies on weight outcomes many of these strategies have clear health benefits and were components in RCTs of intensive behavioral intervention. Many strategies are endorsed by major professional or public health organizations. Therefore, pediatricians and other PHCPs can appropriately encourage families to adopt these strategies. To me this sounds a lot like throwing the concept of “evidence-based” right out the window. None of this means “these strategies are likely to lead to long-term weight loss,” but I'll bet that won't be what is conveyed to the patients and families upon whom these “strategies” are foisted. Before we move on to their recommendations around diet drugs, here is some research to contextualize these recommendations:Neumark-Sztainer et. al, 2012, Dieting and unhealthy weight control behaviors during adolescence: Associations with 10-year changes in body mass indexNone of the behaviors being used by adolescents for weight-control purposes predicted weight lossOf greater concern were the negative outcomes associated with dieting and the use of unhealthful weight-control behaviors…including eating disorders and weight gain [Note: This is not to say that there is anything wrong with higher-weight, but that there is something wrong with a supposed healthcare intervention that has significant risks, almost never works, and has the opposite of the intended effect up to 66% of the time.] Raffoul and Williams, 2021, Integrating Health at Every Size principles into adolescent careCurrent weight-focused interventions have not demonstrated any lasting impact on overall adolescent healthBEAT UK, 2020 Eating Disorders Association, Changes Needed to Government Anti-ob*sity StrategiesGovernment-sanctioned anti-ob*sity campaigns* increase the vulnerability of those at risk of developing an eating disorder* exacerbate eating disorder symptoms in those already diagnosed with an eating disorder* show little success at reducing ob*sityStrategies including changes to menus and food labels, information around ‘healthy/unhealthy' foods, and school-based weight management programs all pose a risk.Pinhas et. al. 2013, Trading health for a healthy weight: the uncharted side of healthy weights initiativesOb*sity-prevention programs that push “healthy eating” are triggering disordered eating in some children, creating sudden neuroses around food in children who never before worried about their weightThey were all affected by the idea of trying to adopt a more healthy lifestyle, in the absence of significant pre-existing notions, beliefs or concerns regarding their own weight, shape or eating habits prior to the interventionFiona Willer, Phd, AdvAPD, FHEA, MAICD, Non-Executive Board Director at Dietitians AustraliaQuoted from: health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/articles/for-healthy-kids-skip-the-kurbo-app“Dieting to a weight goal was found to be related to poorer dietary quality, poorer mental health and poorer quality of life when compared with people who were health conscious but not weight conscious”Ok. Moving on.RECOMMENDATION: Use of Pharmacotherapy (aka Weight Loss Drugs)Their consensus recommendation is that pediatricians and other PCHPs “may offer children ages 8 through 11 years of age with ob*sity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks, and benefits as an adjunct to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”They admit that “For children younger than 12 years, there is insufficient evidence to provide a Key Action Statement (KAS) for use of pharmacotherapy for the sole indication of ob*sity,” but then go on to suggest that if kids 8-11 also have other health conditions, somehow weight loss drugs (which are not indicated for the treatment of the actual health conditions they have) “may be indicated.”Their KAS is that “pediatricians and other PHCPs should offer adolescents 12 y and older with ob*sity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks and benefits as and adjunct  to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”The studies that were actually included in the evidence review predominantly studied metformin (alone and in combination with other drugs,) which is not approved for weight loss, orlistat, exenatide, and one study that looked at phentermine, mixed carotenoids, topiramate, ephedrine, and recombinant human growth hormone.Even though the studies for other drugs did not exist at the time of the evidence review, they made the choice to include them anyway. (This includes Wegovy, the drug that Novo Nordisk, a donor to the AAP, has promised their shareholders will be a blockbuster and that announced its approval in children as young as 12 just days prior to the publication of the guidelines.) Let's look at the efficacy of the drugs they are recommending:MetforminAdverse effects include bloating, nausea, flatulence, and diarrhea and lactic acidosis which they characterize as “serious but very rare.” The guidelines describe the evidence of metformin for weight loss in pediatric populations as “conflicting” They evaluated 16 studies, about two-thirds of which showed a “modest BMI reduction” and one-third showed “no benefit.” Also, this drug is not approved for weight loss. They recommend that due to the “modest and inconsistent effectiveness, metformin may be considered as an adjunct to intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment (IHBLT) and when other indications for use of metformin are present.”Orlistat:This drug is currently approved for ages 12 and up. Orlistat is sold under the name alli by GlaxoSmithKline and as Xenical by Genentech (both GlaxoSmithKline and Genentech are donors to the AAP.) The guidelines point out that the side effects (including fecal urgency, flatulence and oily stool) “greatly limit tolerability” but do say that “Orlistat is FDA approved for long-term treatment of ob*sity in children 12 years and older.” They cite two studies from 2005. One (Behzat et al., Addition of orlistat to conventional treatment in adolescents with severe ob*sity) started with 22 adolescents, 7 of whom dropped out within the first month due to drug side effects. The remaining 15 subjects were followed for 5-15 months with an average of 11.7 months of follow up. Those 15 patients lost 6.27 +/- 5.4 kg within the study time.The other (Chanoine JP et al, 2005, Effect of orlistat on weight and body composition in ob*se adolescents) was a one-year study with 357 adolescents (age 12-15) in the Orlistat group. They lost weight initially but the weight loss stopped at week 12 and by the end of the study the weight of those in the Orlistat group had increased by .53kg.Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonistsThese are drugs that are type 2 diabetes medications that were found to have a side effect of weight loss. In some cases they have been rebranded specifically for weight loss and, in others, are prescribed off-label.ExenatideThis drug is currently approved in kids ages 10 to 17 years of age. The guidelines point out that a small weight loss was shown in two small studies but with “significant adverse effects.”LiraglutideThe study they cite for liraglutide (Kelly et al, Trial Investigators. A randomized, controlled trial of liraglutide for adolescents with ob*sity.) was a 56 week study with a 26-week follow-up period. Participants lost weight initially, but after 42 weeks began to regain weight (though they were still on the drug) at 56 weeks weight gain became more rapid and at the end of the 26-week follow up they were nearing baseline. The guidelines characterize this as “A recent randomized controlled trial found liraglutide (daily injection) more effective than placebo in weight loss at 1 year among patients 12 years and older with ob*sity who did not respond to lifestyle treatment.” They do not make it clear that participants experienced near total weight regain (see graphic below.) In addition to the near total lack of weight loss (and remember that it's pretty likely that subjects continued to regain weight after the tracking stopped at 82 weeks,) side effects included nausea and vomiting, and among patients with a family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia, a slightly increased risk of medullary thyroid cancer. Liraglutide is sold as Victoza and Saxenda by Novo Nordisk. This study was a clinical trial funded by Novo Nordisk, multiple study authors work for, are employees of, take payments from and/or own stock in Novo Nordisk (see disclosures below) and Novo Nordisk provides funding directly to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and has paid thousands of dollars to authors of these guidelines.Just for funsies I checked the disclosures: Dr. Kelly reports receiving donated drugs from AstraZeneca and travel support from Novo Nordisk and serving as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Orexigen Therapeutics, VIVUS, and WW (formerly Weight Watchers); Dr. Auerbach, being employed by and owning stock in Novo Nordisk; Dr. Barrientos-Perez, receiving advisory-board fees from Novo Nordisk; Dr. Gies, receiving advisory-board fees from Novo Nordisk; Dr. Hale, being employed by and owning stock in Novo Nordisk; Dr. Marcus, receiving consulting fees from Itrim and owning stock in Health Support Sweden; Dr. Mastrandrea, receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and Sanofi US and grant support and fees for serving on a writing group from Novo Nordisk; Ms. Prabhu, being employed by and owning stock in Novo Nordisk; and Dr. Arslanian, receiving fees for serving on a data monitoring committee from AstraZeneca, fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Boehringer Ingelheim, grant support, paid to University of Pittsburgh, and advisory-board fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, and consulting fees from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. Melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R) agonistsThese are specialty drugs that are only FDA approved for patients 6 years and older with proopiomelanocortin deficiency, proprotein subtilisin or kexin type 1 deficiency and leptin receptor deficiency confirmed by genetic testing. They site a small, uncontrolled study in which patients experience weight loss of 12-25% over 1 year. PhenterminePhentermine is a controlled substance chemically similar to amphetamine which carries a risk of dependence as well as side effects including elevated blood pressure, dizziness, and tremor. These are FDA approved for a 3-month course of therapy for adolescents 16 or older. I'm not clear what good could come out of giving a teenager a drug with these kinds of risk for 3 months?TopiramateThis is a drug that is used to treat seizures and migraines that happens to have a side effect of making people not want to eat through what the guidelines admit are “largely unknown mechanisms.” These drugs cause cognitive slowing and can cause embryo malformation. It's approved for children 2 years and older with epilepsy and 6 and older for headaches and I cannot for the life of me imagine how it could possibly be ethical to cause cognitive slowing in a child (who is going to school!) in order to disrupt their bodies hunger signals.Phentermine/TopiramateYou read that right, those last two drugs with the dangerous, quality-of-life impacting side effects? The guidelines discuss the option of prescribing them together. To children. This is based on a 56-week study (Kelly et al, 2022, Phentermine/topiramate for the treatment of adolescent ob*sity.) In the study, 54 subjects were given a mild dose, 15 of them dropped out. 113 were given the “top dose” 44 of them dropped out. As we've seen in other studies, weight loss had leveled off and begun to rise slightly by week 56 and there is no reason to believe it wouldn't go back up, but we'll never know because they didn't do any more follow-up. By the way, like most of the other studies, these subjects were also undergoing a “lifestyle modification program.” Also, like the other drugs, I think it's important to note that this was FDA-approved for “chronic treatment” based on the results of a study that only lasted 56 weeks. That is a common situation with weight loss drugs.Finally, the guidelines don't mention that side effects of this drug include increased heart rate, suicidal behavior and ideation, slowing of linear growth, acute myopia, secondary angle closure glaucoma, visual problems; mood and sleep disorders; cognitive impairment; metabolic acidosis; and decrease in renal function.  As I was looking this up, I noticed that the lead author of this study is the same lead author of the liraglutide study. Phentermine/Topiramate is sold under the brand name Qysmia by Vivus. I had to do some digging to get to the disclosures on this one and what do you know, Dr. Kelly has received grant consideration and consults for Vivus. In fact, with the exception of Megan Oberle, every author of this study either receives funding from/consults for Vivus, or is an employee of Vivus. Megan Oberle lists no conflicts of interest in this 2022 study but, interestingly, in a 2019 study (It is Time to Consider Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Youth) the disclosure states “MO serves as site PI [principal investigator] for study through Vivus Pharmaceuticals” so we know they're not strangers. LisdexamfetamineThis is a stimulant that is approved for kids 6 and older who have ADHD, in those 18 and up for Binge Eating Disorder, and while it is sometimes prescribed off-label for higher-weight kids, the guidelines note that “no evidence available at the time of this review to demonstrate safety or efficacy for the indication of ob*sity in children.”Summing up, there are significant risks of side effects (some life threatending) and not a drug among them has shown anything approaching long-term efficacy. Let's look at the last of the recommendations.RECOMMENDATION: Weight Loss SurgeryThis is the last bit I'll write about today. This section beginsIt is widely accepted that the most severe forms of pediatric ob*sity (ie, class 2 ob*sity; BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, or 120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex, whichever is lower) represent an “epidemic within an epidemic.”Remember, for a moment, that this phrasing is from authors who swear up and down that they are working to end weight stigma. One wonders what they would have written if they were trying to stigmatize higher-weight children. (Just fyi, if anyone is confused, you can't usefear-mongering language, describing a group of people simply existing in the world at a higher-weight as an “epidemic” without stigmatizing them.)The KAS here (for me the most horrifying of those offered,) isPediatricians and other PHCPs should offer referral for adolescents 13y and older with severe ob*sity (BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex) for evaluation for metabolic and bariatric surgery to local or regional comprehensive multidisciplinary pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery centers. [I'll note here that at least one of the authors of these guidelines runs just such a facility.]Before we get too far into this, let's be clear about what these surgeries do. They take a child's perfectly functioning digestive system, and put it into a (typically irreversible) disease state forcing, restriction and/or malabsorption (for an explanation of the various surgeries, check out this post.) If this state happens to a child because of disease or accident, it is considered a tragedy. If the child is higher-weight, it is considered, at least by the authors of these guidelines, healthcare.They make the claim “Large contemporary and well-designed prospective observational studies have compared adolescent cohorts undergoing bariatric surgical treatment versus intensive ob*sity treatment or nonsurgical controls. These studies suggest that weight loss surgery is safe and effective for pediatric patients in comprehensive metabolic and bariatric surgery settings that have experience working with youth and their families”To support this, they cite a single study. The study (Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe ob*sity (AMOS): a prospective, 5-year, Swedish nationwide study) included 81 subjects who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.The average weight loss was 36·8 kg over five years, but 11% of those who had the surgery lost less than 10% of their body weight.A full 25%  had to have additional abdominal surgery for complications from the original surgery or rapid weight loss and 72% showed some type of nutritional deficiency. And that's just in five years. Remember that the damage done to the digestive system is permanent. They are recommending this as young as 13, so a five year follow-up only gets these kids to 18. Then what?By the look of their own graph, what comes next may well be more weight gain, since the surgery survivors' weight loss leveled off after year one and started to steadily climb after year two. There's also the impact of those nutrient deficiencies. They also claim that these surgeries lead to a “durable reduction of BMI.” Let's take a look at the studies they cite to prove that.Inge et al., 2018 Comparison of Surgical and Medical Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes in Severely Ob*se AdolescentsThis study lasted two years. It looked at data from 30 adolescents who had weight loss surgery. They averaged 29% weight loss over 2 years and 23% of the subjects had to have a second surgery during those two years.Göthberg et al., 2014, Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with morbid ob*sity--surgical aspects and clinical outcomeThis study just rehashes information from the Olbers study above.O'Brien et al. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in severely ob*se adolescents: a randomized trialThis study is about gastric banding and I'm not sure why they included it because in the paragraph above it they point out that these surgeries are “approved by the FDA only for patients 18 years and older, have declined in use in both adults and youth because of worse long-term effects as well as higher-than expected complication rates” (they cite 18 studies to back up this particular claim.)Olbers et al., 2012 Two-year outcome of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe ob*sity: results from a Swedish Nationwide Study (AMOS)These are just the two-year outcomes from the five-year Olbers study aboveOlbers et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe ob*sity (AMOS): a prospective, 5-year, Swedish nationwide study.This is the exact same 5-year Olbers study from above, just given a different citation number.Ryder et al., 2018 Factors associated with long-term weight-loss maintenance following bariatric surgery in adolescents with severe ob*sityThis study included 50 subjects who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and had a follow-up at year one and another follow-up sometime between years 5 and 12. They were then divided into “regainers” and “maintainers” though by their criteria, “maintainer” subjects could regain, they just couldn't regain more than 20% of the weight they lost prior to their follow-up. Though the study is called “Factors associated with long-term weight-loss maintenance” they were not able to identify any factors that were predictors of “regaining” or “maintaining.” You'll note in the graph below that weight was still trending upward when they stopped following up.So let's recap: They cite 7 studies to back up their recommendation of referrals for these surgeries for kids ages 13 and up. Four of the seven are the same study. One is a study for a surgery that they themselves have said is declining in use, so I'm excluding it. Combined, the rest of the studies followed a grand total of 161 people. The longest follow-up is “5+ years” and the studies consistently showed weight regain that was trending up when follow-up ended, as well as high rates of additional surgery and nutrient deficiencies. This, to me, doesn't come close to justifying a blanket recommendation that every kid 13 and older whose BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex be referred for evaluation for weight loss surgery.And when it comes to their criteria for these surgeries, they predicate risk on size. Those with “class 2 ob*sity” are required to have “clinically significant disease” which doesn't make the surgery ethical but, in comparison; children with “class 3 ob*sity” simply have to exist in the world to meet the criteria to have their digestive system put into a permanent disease state. One thing they do point out is that recent data showing multiple micronutrient deficiencies following metabolic and bariatric surgery serve to highlight the need for routine and long-term monitoring. Here we see a serious issue with giving this surgery to adolescents. First of all, they are rarely in control of their access to food. If their parents don't buy them what they need, if a parent loses their job and can no longer afford the supplements they require, if they experience hunger and/or homelessness… there are so many things that could impact a 13-year-old's ability to eat in the very specific ways they need to after the surgery for the rest of their life. Also, these surgeries are going to change the ways that these kids eat - at every school lunch, birthday party, family holiday. Anytime food is served, it is going to become clear that they are different, and if they aren't in charge of preparing the food, there is no guarantee that they will be able to get what they need. And that's if they want to do that. Let's not forget, these are humans who are/will be exploring their independence, including through rebellion, they are humans whose prefrontal cortex is not fully developed, meaning that they can literally lack the ability to fully recognize the consequences of their choices. (Of course, given that we only have five years of follow-up data, I would argue that their doctors and surgical teams also lack the ability to fully recognize the consequences of their choices.)The authors end the section with a fairly shameless plug for insurance coverage of these surgeries. This is another long-time goal of the weight loss industry that has made its way into these guidelines.I think this is a good time for a reminder that thin kids get the same health issues for which higher-weight kids are referred to these surgeries and thin kids are NOT asked to take the risks of these surgeries or to have their digestive systems permanently altered. They just get the ethical, evidence-based treatment for the health issue they actually have. Also, remember that the authors' research methodology specifically excluded research about weight-neutral intervention to see if any health benefits that the surgeries might create could be achieved without the significant (and, from a long-term perspective, largely unknown) risks of these surgeries, and perhaps be more lasting?But there is more to this in terms of informed consent. There are many of the same issues that we see with adults (which I wrote about here). With kids, there is another layer. In the state of California, for example, it is illegal to give a tattoo to someone under the age of 18, even with parental permission. But an eighth grader can make the decision to have their digestive system permanently altered, impacting their life and quality of life in myriad ways, many of which are unknown, and with no prognostics? Given all of this, is informed consent even possible for these kids? I would argue that it is not.Even worse, how many kids' parents, in some combination of weight stigma, concern for their child, and acquiescence to a doctor who may be pressuring them, will make this decision for their child?While I'm sure that there are adolescents who had the surgery and are happy with their outcome, I'm equally sure that there are adolescents who had terrible outcomes and would give anything to not have had the surgery (I know because I hear from them). And I know that the research can't tell us why anyone has the outcome they have. When you combine that with the total lack of long-term follow-up (I'm completely unwilling to consider 5 years “long term” for a lifelong intervention,) I think what we have here are, at best, experimental procedures, not procedures that should receive the kind of blanket recommendations that these guidelines provide for kids as young as 13.Ok, there's a lot more to discuss in these guidelines but I will save that for another newsletter. I hope that the outcry against these guidelines is loud, sustained, and successful in getting them rescinded. Kids deserve far better than this.Finally, I just want to give a quick shout-out to my paid subscribers (I know not everyone can/wants to have a paid subscription and that's totally fine - absolutely no shame at all if you are reading this for free as a subscriber or randomly!) those who are able to pay are allowed me to spend HOURS this week going through these guidelines and creating Thursday's post and this post, I'm just super grateful for the support.I'll be posting additional deep-dives into the research they cite and I'll keep a list here:“New insights about how to make an intervention in children and adolescents with metabolic syndrome” Pérez et al.Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked this piece? Share this piece:More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

618--这两年看到这三个数字，豪兔兔都是既开心又紧张。尤其是今年，心里真是百味杂陈。大家都知道，豪兔兔在过去几个月享受了足不出户，只需要想着吃的日子。听着挺美好的，这实际上意味着除了吃的，其他啥也买不到。所以，哪怕上海快递还没完全恢复，哪怕4月份买的东西还在待发货的状态，本兔我也是刹不住脚地冲进了买买买的大军。就在豪兔兔要潇洒的把购物车清空的时候，突然想起来公司里有两大买王，一个是以理智著称的达达，一个被称为购物像做高等数学的莫莫，于是拉着她们二人重新捋了一遍618买买买该有的节奏。毕竟作为职场半新鲜人，也不能肆无忌惮的消费。但说实话，不知道她们是不是被憋疯了，聊一个买买买，聊出了说相声的节奏，所以，豪兔兔想认真脸地问一下这期给的买买买建议还能参考吗？听到最后发现，嗯，想来她们还是认真的分享了干货。>>>玫瑰是玫瑰：产品品质有保证推荐物品：LYCOCELLE 洗护类，针对精致衣物洗护，性价比高MY.ORGANICS 有机苦楝子油，对头皮发痒，头皮亚健康有显著作用Augustinus Bader 赋能润唇膏，针对唇部滋养修复，性价比高MIRIAMQUEVEDO 修复再生护手霜，针对手部滋养修复，性价比高>>>大眼睛买买买：产品折扣力度大，使用方法讲解仔细推荐物品：SEPAI诗萨 美白淡斑精华，买一赠三（赠送的可是正品，太香了）Temple Spa 深层清洁面膜（折扣的基础上还送眼膜，目前已缺货，幸好本兔下手快）Itrim 天然果泥清洁面膜（虽然折扣力度不高，赠品一般，但这是一直保持价格坚挺的好物）>>>天猫：香水爱好者的天堂，便宜到不可思议主播 /达达、莫莫音频剪辑 /Spark头图&封面设计&排版 /小刀Music 音乐/Butterfly--林本本我们的各种账号都是“同样YT” 欢迎订阅、关注和互动

618--这两年看到这三个数字，豪兔兔都是既开心又紧张。尤其是今年，心里真是百味杂陈。大家都知道，豪兔兔在过去几个月享受了足不出户，只需要想着吃的日子。听着挺美好的，这实际上意味着除了吃的，其他啥也买不到。所以，哪怕上海快递还没完全恢复，哪怕4月份买的东西还在待发货的状态，本兔我也是刹不住脚地冲进了买买买的大军。就在豪兔兔要潇洒的把购物车清空的时候，突然想起来公司里有两大买王，一个是以理智著称的达达，一个被称为购物像做高等数学的莫莫，于是拉着她们二人重新捋了一遍618买买买该有的节奏。毕竟作为职场半新鲜人，也不能肆无忌惮的消费。但说实话，不知道她们是不是被憋疯了，聊一个买买买，聊出了说相声的节奏，所以，豪兔兔想认真脸地问一下这期给的买买买建议还能参考吗？听到最后发现，嗯，想来她们还是认真的分享了干货。>>>玫瑰是玫瑰：产品品质有保证推荐物品：LYCOCELLE 洗护类，针对精致衣物洗护，性价比高MY.ORGANICS 有机苦楝子油，对头皮发痒，头皮亚健康有显著作用Augustinus Bader 赋能润唇膏，针对唇部滋养修复，性价比高MIRIAMQUEVEDO 修复再生护手霜，针对手部滋养修复，性价比高>>>大眼睛买买买：产品折扣力度大，使用方法讲解仔细推荐物品：SEPAI诗萨 美白淡斑精华，买一赠三（赠送的可是正品，太香了）Temple Spa 深层清洁面膜（折扣的基础上还送眼膜，目前已缺货，幸好本兔下手快）Itrim 天然果泥清洁面膜（虽然折扣力度不高，赠品一般，但这是一直保持价格坚挺的好物）>>>天猫：香水爱好者的天堂，便宜到不可思议主播 /达达、莫莫音频剪辑 /Spark头图&封面设计&排版 /小刀Music 音乐/Butterfly--林本本我们的各种账号都是“同样YT” 欢迎订阅、关注和互动

Amanda Koutra är vd för den svenska franchisekedjan Itrim International, som hos gemene man är mest kända för deras framgångsrika arbete mot övervikt. Amanda själva har arbetat inom marknad och försäljning under hela sin karriär, som vd på Carat, kommunikations- och marknadschef på Fotografiska, försäljningschef på Retriever samt marknads- och kommunikationschef på utbildningskoncernen AcadeMedia. .   .   . Följ Sweaty Business: Brian van den Brink: @brianvdb Instagram: @sweatybusinessmedia Linkedin: Sweaty Business Media Facebook: Sweaty Business Web: sweatybusiness.se

Julia tog kontakt med oss och upplyste oss om vikten att prata om utmattning och överträning i relation till triathlon och att, som Julia säger, det kan komma även om man bara göra sådant som man tycker är kul. Hon har själv erfarenheter från utmattning och är på sin väg tillbaka, Hon beskriver sig som en löpare som kör triathlon och hon jobbar i träningsbranchen då hon driver ett Itrim-center i Stockholm. Vi går in på Julias utmattning, nycklar i vardagen, hur man kan få hjälp vid symptom och mycket mer. Therese och Sofia kommer in på cykeltema i introt då Therese nyss köpt ny MTB och Sofia är sugen på en gravel bike.

I veckans avsnitt går vi in på hur vår syn på träning och kost har påverkat våra liv. Lyssna på hur Osanna har format kroppen på sitt älskade Friskis & Svettis, och inte alls bryr sig om större storlekar. Natali har däremot gått ner 20 kg dels med hjälp av Itrim och andra snabba hjälp medel, men trots det kämpar hon ständigt mot sina demoner som säger, trots sin storlek S, att hon är tjock.    

Martin Anderlind är serieentreprenör och vän till familjen sedan barnsben. Jag har följt hans spännande resa på avstånd, och vilken resa det har varit! Han var bland de första som förstod möjligheterna med Internet och startade IT-bolaget Netsolutions 1995 som senare såldes till Framtidsfabriken. Därefter tog han sin passion för folkhälsa och startade hälsoföretaget Itrim som hjälper människor med att gå ner i vikt och skapa hälsosamma vanor och finns idag i Sverige, England, Tyskland, Kina och USA. Nu arbetar han tillsammans med Elon Musks förra vapendragare Peter Carlsson för att batteriföretaget Northvolt ska kunna förse bilindustrin, och alla andra industrier, med effektiva batterier för att kunna möta framtiden. I podden får vi lyssna till hur arbetet går just nu, vi får Martins framtidsspaningar inom elsektorn och pratar även hur man balanserar ett så stort jobb som han gör med att vara familjefar till fyra barn. Martin delar också ut flera kloka tips som jag tror många kommer ha stor nytta av och som jag själv inspirerades mycket av. Jag hoppas verkligen ni gillar det här! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Martin Anderlind är serieentreprenör och vän till familjen sedan barnsben. Jag har följt hans spännande resa på avstånd, och vilken resa det har varit! Han var bland de första som förstod möjligheterna med Internet och startade IT-bolaget Netsolutions 1995 som senare såldes till Framtidsfabriken. Därefter tog han sin passion för folkhälsa och startade hälsoföretaget Itrim som hjälper människor med att gå ner i vikt och skapa hälsosamma vanor och finns idag i Sverige, England, Tyskland, Kina och USA. Nu arbetar han tillsammans med Elon Musks förra vapendragare Peter Carlsson för att batteriföretaget Northvolt ska kunna förse bilindustrin, och alla andra industrier, med effektiva batterier för att kunna möta framtiden. I podden får vi lyssna till hur arbetet går just nu, vi får Martins framtidsspaningar inom elsektorn och pratar även hur man balanserar ett så stort jobb som han gör med att vara familjefar till fyra barn. Martin delar också ut flera kloka tips som jag tror många kommer ha stor nytta av och som jag själv inspirerades mycket av. Jag hoppas verkligen ni gillar det här! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dagens gäst i Franchisepodden är Anders Lindgren, en av grundarna till Itrim. Itrim är en kedja med träningsanläggningar som erbjuder ett program för varaktig viktminskning genom en kombination av motion, mat och motivation. Kedjan startades 2003 och vi får höra om Itrims internationella xt, men också om Anders andra intressen, allt från samhällsengagemang till ishockey och bastubad.

Birgitta Thörn har arbetat med träning och hälsa i hela sitt liv och är en välkänd hälsoprofil i Sverige. I början av 1980-talet var hon en av de första som lanserade aerobics i Sverige och for land och rike runt och utbildade aerobicinstruktörer. Men Birgitta har också egna erfarenheter av hur svårt det kan vara att hitta en balanserad livsstil. Trots ett aktivt liv gick Birgitta upp kraftigt i vikt i samband med sin andra graviditet.År 2000 bestämde Birgitta sig för att det fick vara nog. Hon skulle gå ner i vikt och hitta en hållbar livsstil. Och hon ville utveckla ett koncept som inte bara hjälpte människor att gå ner i vikt, utan även att ändra sina vanor så att viktminskningen blev hållbar. Birgitta läste mängder av studier och plockade det bästa från alla metoder hon provat. Resultatet blev grunden till Itrim - ett viktminskningsprogram som baseras på en kombination av mat, motion och motivation. Under de senaste 11 åren har Itrim-konceptet finslipats och utvecklats till det som Itrim är idag. En kedja som finns på runt 45 ställen i Sverige och även i Kina, Tyskland och USA. Över 60 000 människor har fått hjälp att gå ner i vikt och ändra sina vanor genom Itrim. Följ Sweaty Business i sociala medier: Artiklar om/med Sweaty Business: linktr.ee/sweatybusinessmedia Instagram: @sweatybusinessmedia Facebook: Sweaty Business

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Welcome to Circulation on the Run, your weekly podcast summary and backstage pass to the journal and its editors. I'm Dr. Carolyn Lam, associate editor from the National Heart Center and Duke National University of Singapore. Our feature paper this week really adds to our understanding of the cause/effect relationship between obesity and heart failure, this time by comparing the effects of gastric bypass surgery versus intensive lifetime treatment on heart failure risk. Before we talk about that, though, let me give you your summary of this week's journal.                                                 The first paper brings us one step closer to understanding cardiac recovery in response to mechanical unloading by left ventricular assist devices and it does this by showing that this process may involve the transverse tubular system, which is a micro structural feature of ventricular cardiomyocytes important for contractility and consisting of tubular invaginations of the sarcolemma predominantly located at the Z-lines of sarcomeres. This transverse tubular system is crucial for efficient excitation contraction coupling by bringing L-type calcium channels in the sarcolemma in proximity to clusters of ryanodine receptors in the sarcoplasmic reticulum.                                                 In the current study by co-corresponding authors, Dr. Seidel and Drakos and Sachse from University of Utah, the authors studied left ventricular biopsies obtained from five donors and 26 patients with chronic heart failure undergoing implantation of left ventricular assist devices or LVAD's. They used three dimensional confocal microscopy and computational image analysis to assess the transverse tubular system's structure, density, and distance of ryanodine receptor clusters to the sarcolemma.                                                 They found that the majority of heart failure myocytes showed remarkable transverse tubular system remodeling, particular sheet-like invaginations of the sarcolemma, which is previously unknown phenotype. This sheet-like transverse tubular system remodeling led to increased distances of ryanodine receptors to the sarcolemma causing heterogeneous intracellular calcium release and consequently inefficient excitation contraction coupling. High degrees of transverse tubular remodeling at the time of LVAD implantation was associated with absence of functional cardiac recovery during mechanical unloading, whereas preserved transverse tubular systems structure was associated with recovery.                                                 In summary, cardiac recovery during unloading may require an intact transverse tubular system at the time of LVAD implantation. And characterizing this system may help to identify patients with a high probability of functional cardiac recovery in response to mechanical unloading.                                                 There have been a proliferation of algorithms based in high sensitivity assays for cardiac troponins for the diagnosis or exclusion of myocardial infarction. All these algorithms have the potential to overwhelm clinicians with options. Well, there is help in this week's issue with two observational studies directly comparing the diagnostic performances of multiple high-sensitivity troponin testing strategies.                                                 Now, before I describe these two studies in detail, here are some important reminders. Remember that as of early 2017, although high-sensitivity troponin assays are routinely used in many regions of the world, they are not available in the United States. Thus, the specific algorithms discussed here are not applicable with the contemporary sensitive assays that are presently used in the United States. Next, let's remind ourselves that both the United States and European professional guidelines recommend serial measurement of cardiac troponins at presentation or zero hours and three to six hours later with additional testing beyond six hours in patients who have electrocardiographic changes, or intermediate or high clinical risk features.                                                 The 2015 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines also included an alternative strategy reducing the sampling interval to one hour when using a high sensitivity troponin assay with a validated zero and one hour algorithm based on the 99 percentile cutoff of these high sensitivity troponin assays. Now to the two studies in the current issue, which tie together the expanding evidence with direct comparisons of several of the strategies using the same high sensitivity cardiac troponin assay by Abbott.                                                 Dr. Chapman and colleagues from the royal infirmary of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, compared the standard ECS zero and three hour strategy based on the 99th percentile upper reference limit at both time points with the high sensitivity troponin in the evaluation of patients with acute coronary syndrome, or high stakes algorithm, and that would be a zero, three, and six hour algorithm that incorporates a zero hour criteria and at a very low cutoff of five nanogram per liter and a three hour criterion that directs patients with either a rising concentration or with an absolute concentration above the upper reference limit to additional testing.                                                 Among 1,218 patients with suspected myocardial infarction, the high stakes algorithm delivered both a higher proportion ruled out for myocardial infarction at zero hours and a higher negative predictive value of 99.5% versus 97.9%. The ESC pathway missed 18 index and two recurrent myocardial infarction events, whereas the high stakes pathway missed two index and two recurrent myocardial infarction events. These findings demonstrate the value of adding a very low zero hour cutoff to facilitate earlier rule out as well as the value of a delta criterion to exclude increasing values among patients that progress to three hour sampling.                                                 In the next study, first author, Dr. Boeddinghaus, corresponding author Dr. Mueller and colleagues from University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland compared the ESC alternative zero and one hour strategy with three other approaches using either a single cutoff at zero hours, or the one hour strategy. Among 2,828 patients with symptoms suspicious for myocardial infarction and no ST elevation, each of these four approaches delivered a negative predicted value above 99% comparing favorably to the ESC zero and three hour algorithm that had a negative predictive value of 98.4%.                                                 Now, although each of the strategies performed similarly among patients presenting more than two hours after symptom onset, among the early presenters, the negative predictive value and sensitivity were diminished using the single zero hour cutoff of five nanograms per liter. The authors concluded that the single cutoff strategy, the one hour algorithm, and the zero and one hour algorithm, allow the triage towards rule out of myocardial infarction in more than half of consecutive patients presenting with suspected MI to the emergency department. However, the single cutoff strategy should not be used in patients presenting early after chest pain onset.                                                 These papers are discussed in an excellent editorial, which also puts everything in perspective by Dr. David Morrow from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. I particularity want to refer all of you to the figure that's found in its editorial which really helps you to understand the different strategies involved.                                                 The final study tells us about potential death averted and serious adverse events occurred from the adoption of the SPRINT intensive blood pressure regimen in the United States. As a reminder, the systolic blood pressure intervention trial, or SPRINT demonstrated a 27% reduction in all caused mortality with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 versus less than 140 mm Hg among American adults at high cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, stroke, or heart failure.                                                 In the current study, Dr. Bress and colleagues from the University of Utah School of Medicine applied the SPRINT eligibility criteria to the 1999 to 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey or NHANES and linked this with the national death index through December, 2011. They found that if fully implemented in eligible US adults, intensive blood pressure treatment was projected to prevent about 107,500 deaths and 46,100 of heart failure per year. But, you also give rise to about 56,100 episodes of hypertension. 34,400 episodes of syncope, 43,400 serious electrolyte disorders, and 88,700 of acute kidney injury per year compared to standard blood pressure treatment. Thus, they take home message is careful patients selection and implementation are important because intensive treatment while preventing deaths is associated with increased risks of hypertension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury.                                                 Well, that brings us to a close for the summaries, now for our feature discussion.                                                 We are discussing obesity and heart failure. Now, we've heard of the obesity paradox, but we also know that obesity may be a risk factor for heart failure and the study today really puts perspective on this and is really one of the largest most convincing studies I've read on this topic. I am so pleased to have the person corresponding author, Dr. Johan Sundstrom from Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. Welcome, Johan. Dr Johan Sundstrom:      Thank you, lovely to talk to you. Dr Carolyn Lam:                And especially pleased to have back on the show again, Dr. Torbjorn Omland from University of Oslo, Norway. Hi, welcome back, Torbjorn. Dr Torbjorn Omland:      Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure being here. Dr Carolyn Lam:                Johan, you know what? Could you just start by telling us about your study? Dr Johan Sundstrom:      So, we were fortunate enough to have two great databases here in Sweden. One was the obesity surgery registry called SOREG in which all people have a gastric bypass surgery, for people who are registered. And we also have a company called Itrim who provide intensive lifestyle program, which takes people down on average about 11 kilos, and they have a very structured database as well. So, we were able to pull this data in order to try and understand the effects of intentional weight loss to two different levels of weight loss, what that does to the heart failure incidence.                                                 This is a bit of a comparative effectiveness study, so it's of course necessary to make the examples as similar as possible to apply exclusion criteria. We took away everyone who had a body mass index of less than 30 and above 50 and then we applied propensity scores to those two data sets and we had to trim the data sets a little bit further in order to get so called region of common support, which means that we were left with two samples who could have either had surgery or a lifestyle intervention. And then we applied an inverse probability weighting scheme to that. It's statistically complicated but what that does, is it's a matching, but it's not as complicated as matching. With matching, you just give people a weight of 1 or 0, but this gives people other weights as well.                                                 So, we end up with characteristics that were very similar at baseline. So, we tried to mimic as close as possible what a randomized clinical trial looks like, but of course we did it posthoc and it's observational. So, we get our table one, sort of, in this paper that shows very similar characteristics of the two groups. So, what we did then is we noted what happened to the people in these two groups in terms of heart failure incidence and we followed them in our national inpatient registry. So, all the Swedish citizens get a personal identification number so we can use that to follow people in our patient registry.  So, we know exactly what drugs people will collect from pharmacies, and we know what they died from, and we know all of their hospitalizations. And we previously validated their heart failure diagnosis in the Swedish Inpatient Registry and we noted that you were in a pretty good position if you were hospitalized with heart failure as the main cause of hospitalization and we noted that people who had agreed to do surgery, had about half the incidence of heart failure than people who were in the intensive lifestyle program.                                                 We also noted, if you looked at the achieved weight loss one year after baseline, we noted that a ten kilo weight loss after one year was related to about a 23% lower risk of heart failure. So we noted a litany of association between the achieved weight loss and heart failure incidence. It should said, though, that heart failure in this age group, they are only 41 on average, 41 years old. Heart failure's still very unusual at this age, even in many of these people. We only had 73 cases of heart failure. So, the exact numbers need to be taken with a pinch of salt and have wide confidence intervals around them. Dr Carolyn Lam:                Johan, this is exactly why I'm so impressed with your data. First you showed a dose response relationship between the weight loss and risk of heart failure. You also show that it's not an event that occurs very often and so, it would be very difficult to imagine doing a randomized controlled trial for example in this setting and having to wait very long for these events. So, it really goes to show your observational data are extremely important. And I really like the way you took the pains to describe how you tried to overcome the differences that exist between the groups and try to make it as much resembling a randomized trial setting as you could. So, maybe I could turn it over to you, Torbjorn. Could you tell us what you think the implications of this paper are? Dr Torbjorn Omland:      First, I will say that that this paper has all the characteristics of a very high quality study. It's a very timely topic that interests a lot of people. The paper's very well written. It's a large sample size as you said and it was very clinically meaningful difference between the groups and that translated into very clear and robust answers. So, I think that this has every mark of high quality paper.                                                 But, of course, the very important question is how will this translate into actions?  How can we use this information to prevent problems? We know heart failure is a very prevalent disease, especially in the elderly and although the incidence was lower here, I think my question for Johan at least is what would be the next step? What changes can we implement to reduce heart failure among the obese? Dr Johan Sundstrom:      That's a great question. I think in this study puts a little piece of the puzzle on the table and that's trying to add a little more evidence towards a causal association between obesity and heart failure. I'm not sure about what we can offer these patients and what will be the translation to lower heart failure incidence in the long run. Of course, we need to follow this sample for longer to have more heart failure cases, because I don't think we've seen the full impact of weight loss in these two samples. We might need to follow them into older age where they would have a higher heart failure incidence.                                                 But, how to tackle obesity, I think we'll need accommodate population strategies and high risk strategies. I think if the general consensus in the scientific community after reading this and other important papers, is that there's causal link between obesity and heart failure, then we might need to understand that people who are obese and who have shortness of breath and perhaps swelling or what not, may not just be having low fitness, they might actually behaving signs of heart failure.                                                 So, I think as a sort of increased diligence on heart failure, these people might be one thing. But, we didn't really study that. So, I wouldn't draw conclusion. But, otherwise I think it's more of a causal inference piece of the puzzle that we've laid rather than a clinical care piece of the puzzle. Dr Torbjorn Omland:      No, I agree, and here you won't to make any recommendations in regards to what interventions you should recommend particularly based on this particular study. Dr Johan Sundstrom:      No, because I think there are so many other things that need to be taken into account when it comes to treatment of obesity. Heart failure is actually one of the uncommon outcomes in this age group. We're looking at other outcomes after they present. Myocardial infarction, ventral fibrillation and mortality are actually much more common. So, I think a lot of other data should go into decisions on how to treat patients, not just for heart failure, which is still fairly uncommon at this age. Dr Carolyn Lam:                Going back to the other question that Torbjorn asked, do you think that this question still needs to be answered in any way? You've got the Mendelian randomization data. Now, you've got your data. Do you think it's still a question of whether obesity is a risk factor for heart failure? And just in case there's any confusion out there, would you put that together with the so called obesity paradox in heart failure? Dr Johan Sundstrom:      To answer the first one, I think we're not going to have any randomized evidence. Treatment of heart failure with intensive programs and prevention of heart failure ... It needs for huge samples that I don't think we're going to have any much better observational evidence anytime soon either. So, we can probably set that question aside a little bit. But, when it comes to the obesity paradox, first of all that's not what we studied here. We didn't have anyone with heart failure in this sample. We included all those people. We can only speculate. I'm a clinical epidemiologist myself, but I'm envious of people who have animal and other models because I think there's a lot more work to do in terms of ppars and and lipid metabolism in obesity and in heart failure. So, I think there'll be more interesting experimental research to come that can help us answer the obesity paradox. Dr Carolyn Lam:                Please don't forget to tell your friends about this podcast, and tune in again next week.