https://www.hospimedica.com/surgical-techniques/articles/294773291/pre-op-weight-loss-improves-bariatric-surgery-outcomes.html

35 minutes ago, Creekimp13 said:

But it does give pretty compelling evidence that those who lose more weight before surgery on a restricted calorie diet will lose more weight after surgery. All factors as to why be d@mned.

No. It doesn't give compelling evidence of that.

It gives compelling evidence that that restricted calorie diets work. That's all it's relationally proving.

Or more specifically, it shows evidence that restricted calorie diets in the obese population with unaltered guts is effective. And the methods need to be futher explored in controlled double blind studies--which are super hard to do in and expensive (in nutrition).

Edited May 8, 20188 yr by FluffyChix

Here's another article on the study: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892400. Do you think these percentages include the pre-op loses?

From article:

"Average Percentage Body Weight Loss Following Bariatric Surgery

Time after bariatric surgery	≥ 8% excess weight loss preop	< 8% excess weight loss preop	P value
3 months, %*	42.3	36.1	< .001
6 months, %*	56.0	47.5	< .001
1 year, %*	65.1	55.7	.003

*Average percentage body weight loss."

I don't think this study is suggesting causation.
But it does give pretty compelling evidence that those who lose more weight before surgery on a restricted calorie diet will lose more weight after surgery. All factors as to why be d@mned.
It's a predictive data model. Not causative.
Is the title of the article "Pre-Op weight loss improves WLS outcomes" fair?
That's subjective, but I think it's fair. Weight loss on a low calorie diet before surgery IS statistically predictive of more success after surgery.
It might not be the whole story, but it's still valid predictive information.

They need to change the title.

Pre op weight loss IMPROVES WLS outcomes.

IMPROVES is an action word... we don’t know that the pre op weight loss is what’s acting on the outcomes... that is a causal statement not a correlational one. It should say “is associated with” or even “predicts better outcomes” either of those statements could be argued.

No, the statement is not fair. It states that the one acts on the other.

I’m a statistician, it was my College minor. It’s not subjective.

Is it predictive? Yes, the article shows that it is statistically predictive. But the title states causation.

Sorry to be a stickler but it loses credibility by stating it in that way. I think the study has some power and validity, so I wish it wouldn’t have undermined that with the title. It’s a great springboard for future study.