Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Weight loss - surgery vs diet - JREF Forum
I've been watching several programs where people have used gastric bypass or lapband surgery to aid in weight loss.
It appears that all of these people have tried diets in past without success and have often said that surgery was their last resort.
Is not weight loss surgery just a form of calorie restriction?
Does this not mean that restricting caloric intake will result in weight loss?
I realize that hungry feelings and other problems are part and parcel to weight loss (gain).
My main point - question is...
Weight loss appears to be hinged upon restricting ones caloric intake...
Burning more calories than one can consume over a period of time.
There are a couple of programs available on tv - Big Medicine (that uses surgery) vs.
Brookhaven (that uses diet/exercise) for weight reduction.
Which is more effective?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
I am absolutely no expert on this topic, but it has always come across to me, perhaps naively, that the other half of the equation is not stressed enough: burning more calories.
Why is there so much focus on consuming less calories and hardly any focus on burning more?
Exercise, even if it doesn't result in weight loss, has many known health benefits.
I have lost about 17 pounds this year, not very much but it has been a combination of both diet and exercise.
Regardless of the choice between surgery intervention or not, exercise is good stuff.
I think it also isn't simply a matter of evaluating what is "better" in the ideal, but which option is more realistic for the person considering it.
Ideally, we'd all eat and exercise appropriately, but surgery may give the results that would not happen otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by portlandatheist I am absolutely no expert on this topic, but it has always come across to me, perhaps naively, that the other half of the equation is not stressed enough: burning more calories..
The Brookhaven program does stress exercise in addition to caloric restriction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you look at the dietary restrictions pre and post surgery for gatric solutions I think you'll agree the diet and exercise route is highly preferred or don't worry about it so much....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1230784/
Serious large studies with surprising conclusions
What you eat and how healthy you are seem far more critical than weight.
Too little fat is often the greater risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by macdoc If you look at the dietary restrictions pre and post surgery for gatric solutions I think you'll agree the diet and exercise route is highly preferred or don't worry about it so much....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1230784/
Serious large studies with surprising conclusions
What you eat and how healthy you are seem far more critical than weight.
Too little fat is often the greater risk.
The study you Quote: says being a bit overweight, 30-40 pounds, is ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My closest friend had gastric bypass.
Basically her "stomach" is aout the size of her thumb now and can physically only hold so much.
Too much sugar (any really) will be dumped into her bloodstream and cause strong nausea and vomiting.
(TMI?) Yes, you can continue to overeat and little by little yourstomach pouch will stretch.
Many people gain back quite a bit of weit after the first year or two if they don't watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Nankay My closest friend had gastric bypass.
Basically her "stomach" is aout the size of her thumb now and can physically only hold so much.
Too much sugar (any really) will be dumped into her bloodstream and cause strong nausea and vomiting.
(TMI?) Yes, you can continue to overeat and little by little yourstomach pouch will stretch.
Many people gain back quite a bit of weit after the first year or two if they don't watch it.
So - your friend can expand her caloric intake by making her stomach pouch bigger.
So - weight loss/gain depends on how many calories one consumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : The study you Quote: says being a bit overweight, 30-40 pounds, is ok More than "ok" - healthier than underweight in terms of longevity and death risk.
An underweight male has the same death risk as morbidly obese and some conditions like certain cancers the extra weight is resource assurance and shows somewhat better outcomes.
Despite more weight in the population heart disease and some others are down and that likely represents better fat type diets (Omega 3 etc ).
Lot of rethinking going on
Cancer being up often represents fewer deaths from other causes and people living longer.
Anyone ever seen a skinny Inuit???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weight loss is as simple as calories in & calories out (will power aside).
It's reasonable to lose two pounds of fat a week, which is equal to about 3500 calories.
This means restricting/burning a combined caloric intake of 500 extra kcal per day over the course of a week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not a 100% rule....some people it does not work that way - the body scavenges when restricted to stay at a set point.
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2009/01...tabolism.shtml
http://esciencenews.com/articles/200...on.body.weight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only long term study of people who kept the weight off was of gastric surgery patients.
The others just can't keep it off permanently.
The latest study vs obesity said that obesity is good, if the patient does not turn diabetic.
Then, there is a drug in trials that treats diabetes by inhibiting mast cells.
Seems it's the inflammation caused by the mast cells that cause sooo many diseases.
It is thought by some that mast cells were evolved to fight intestinal parasites.
So you can see how they might be detrimental to the body- attacking artery walls, joints, stomach lining....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Mache Weight loss is as simple as calories in & calories out (will power aside).
It's reasonable to lose two pounds of fat a week, which is equal to about 3500 calories.
This means restricting/burning a combined caloric intake of 500 extra kcal per day over the course of a week.
I agree with you that weight loss is as simple as calories in/calries out but would add that there are huge differences in calories out for similar activity based on many factors including genetics, age, and fitness level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : The only long term study of people who kept the weight off was of gastric surgery patients.
The others just can't keep it off permanently.
And one wonders what the long term health outcomes are for those with gastric surgery...
•••
Quote: : I agree with you that weight loss is as simple as calories in/calries out it's not but believe what you like
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by macdoc and one wonders what the long term health outcomes are for those with gastric surgery...
it's not but believe what you like Ummm, then what is it?
Discounting water weight for a moment, it really is that simple: any organism that metabolizes more calories than it consumes will lose mass and the converse is also true: any organism than consumes more calories than it metabolizes will gain mass or is it more complicated than that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by portlandatheist Ummm, then what is it?
Discounting water weight for a moment, it really is that simple: any organism that metabolizes more calories than it consumes will lose mass and the converse is also true: any organism than consumes more calories than it metabolizes will gain mass or is it more complicated than that?
I agree with you.
However, it all depends on the definition of it .
The success in regulating that intake certainly varies by person.
It seems to be difficult for some and relatively easy for others.
Maybe that's what he's driving at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy I agree with you.
However, it all depends on the definition of it .
The success in regulating that intake certainly varies by person.
It seems to be difficult for some and relatively easy for others.
Maybe that's what he's driving at.
I agree 100%. There are huge differences between people in what they crave to eat, their ability to eat, when they feel satiated, etc.
There are also huge differences in how quickly individuals metabolize calories and so on.
Nevertheless, this does not change the simple arithmetic of calories consumed versus calories metabolized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by portlandatheist I agree 100%.
There are huge differences between people in what they crave to eat, their ability to eat, when they feel satiated, etc.
There are also huge differences in how quickly individuals metabolize calories and so on.
Nevertheless, this does not change the simple arithmetic of calories consumed versus calories metabolized.
Actually, I've wondered just how much difference there is in how many calories individuals get from food.
As I understand it when the blood sugar gets too high, the kidneys put that sugar in the urine to be excreted.
Beyond that, I wonder if "naturally thin" people extract significantly less energy from food or if "naturally fat" people extract nearly all of the potential energy while "normal" people only extract some percentage.
Back in my days of serious fitness and weight training, I helped people trying to lose or gain weight.
First thing I did was have them accurately track calorie consumption.
Invariably thin people at less than they thought and heavy people ate more.
It wasn't an official study or anything, but I found it interesting that the people I talked to really didn't know their eating habits.
Whatever the case may be, people who stuck to exercise and diet plans got the results you'd expect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy Actually, I've wondered just how much difference there is in how many calories individuals get from food.
As I understand it when the blood sugar gets too high, the kidneys put that sugar in the urine to be excreted.
Beyond that, I wonder if "naturally thin" people extract significantly less energy from food or if "naturally fat" people extract nearly all of the potential energy while "normal" people only extract some percentage.
Back in my days of serious fitness and weight training, I helped people trying to lose or gain weight.
First thing I did was have them accurately track calorie consumption.
Invariably thin people at less than they thought and heavy people ate more.
It wasn't an official study or anything, but I found it interesting that the people I talked to really didn't know their eating habits.
Whatever the case may be, people who stuck to exercise and diet plans got the results you'd expect.
Just to respond to this...
It's an interesting idea (the absorption thing).
My ex husband is 6'1" and weighs around 140 (if not less now).
He's always eaten about 3 times as much as myself, and never gained weight.
No matter what he ate, or how much of it.
He could eat 5 double quarter pounders with cheese a day, and not gain an ounce.
Me though... I've always been on the squishy side.
Even at my thinnest (when I was walking a good 5+ miles a day, had cut my overall calorie consumption by a good 25-30%, and dropped my fat intake as well), I was 5'8" 175.
People have always explained it away by saying that "he just has a fast metabolism" (not that there's any real definition of what a metabolism is, exactly) and I have a slower one, but is that really the case?
Maybe he's just not actually absorbing everything he's eating, and I am?
Is there a way to test how many calories/nutrients a person is actually absorbing from the food they eat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by macdoc That's not a 100% rule....some people it does not work that way - the body scavenges when restricted to stay at a set point.
Thanks for the links - very informative.
I'm interested to see where this theory goes in the years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a quick remark before I delve deeper in this.
I used to have a colleague who was a member of a club of extremely thin people.
I'll try to remember what it's called.
He had to eat about 3500 calories a day just to keep his weight.
IIRC, they had a woman on that club who had to eat about 5000 calories a day (I'll look it up later).
I know that if I eat that much, I quickly lose the ability to move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you can see it in the statistics of lack of long term success and also in the reality of healthy NOT = slim and lean automatically.
Yoyo dieting is the delight of the diet industry and not healthy.
Eating healthy does not equate with restricted calories...
Losing weight is not necessarily a beneficial state
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/06cnd-fat.html
Moderate exercise is a healthy thing....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't find the reference now, but there's been some interesting research that points towards our friendly symbiots, intestinal flora, as having a role to play in the "efficiency" of metabolism.
More effective weight control may involve getting new tenants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some stuff here
http://www.masenka.be/2009/02/26/wei...inal-bacteria/
http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=5934
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17NZNDjcBs
Why Are Thin People Not Fat?
Part One from the BBC Horizon series.
Interesting conclusions.
It is also easier to get calories than to use them.
McDonalds Milkshake - Chocolate (large) 516 Calories.
This will probably equate to an hour or two walking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I don't think it is as easy as in vs.
Out. I have seen too many people, whose habits I have a fairly accurate insight in, just not put on weight, or just not lose any depending on body type.
I have one friend who will not lose weight until calories are restricted to under 500kcal/day (I think the UN defines starvation as under 1000) and I know a couple of people who consume up to 5000kcal/day and still remain underweight.
One of the "skinnies" is very active, but the other one is a couch potato.
The one who can't lose weight cycles 20km to work and 20 km home, all in all 40kms a day - every working day of the year - and takes long walks at weekends.
If it was as easy as in/out then it would be easy.
What I don't get is why it is considered ok to demand that someone live their life on 500kcal/day for the rest of their life.
Because as soon as normal - and by normal for this person I mean about 1800kcal/day - eating is resumed, the weight piles on again for this person.
Bear in mind that no matter what the intake, this person cycles 40km/working day.
It shows in every way except the amount of body fat: this person has calfs like Schwarzenegger and is indefatiguable when it comes to hill walking, trekking etc, despite being over sixty, easily outperforming people thirty years younger when it comes to stamina, if not speed.
I also wonder why we always shrug off the people who can't gain as "just one of those things" but always assume that people who can't lose are lying or deluded about their intake?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by portlandatheist ....Nevertheless, this does not change the simple arithmetic of calories consumed versus calories metabolized.
Maybe so but this completely ignores the biological drive to maintain one's weight.
It's no problem to gain weight but for the vast majority of overweight people trying to lose weight can be as hard as holding your breath.
You can only eat less for a short period of time then your appetite increases and you especially crave high calorie foods.
If it was just a matter of will power you should see a lot more weight loss success stories than you see.
~95% of the overweight population who try to lose weight fail at weight loss.
Lack of will power is not the reason for most of those people.
And there is a reason people who do lose a few pounds gain more back than they lost.
When that appetite kicks in people overeat.
These are biological drives, not simply will power issues.
And there is also a metabolism slow down with calorie restriction.
So if you diet your body conserves more calories by slowing your metabolic rate at rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately it does come down to will-power and effort.
The question is is the amount of will-power and effort required realistic for most people?
Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw ...I have one friend who will not lose weight until calories are restricted to under 500kcal/day...
This is nonsense.
Just staying alive an adult requires about 1300kcal/day.
Perhaps "sandwiches don't count" for your friend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weight gain and loss is very interesting.
I like the Dr.
Phil approach (I don't like Dr.
Phil) but as in any good program he stresses that it is a lifestyle change.
You have to change everything, the way you live.
Focus on just food will not work, nor will focus on exercise.
It is everything together.
Now some people also have bodies that hoard extra calories very easily and create fat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out the last half of part 6 on the ,"Why are thin people not fat?" People who lost 10% of their weight then fed sufficient calories felt like they were starving for months.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF.
The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material.
By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my point of view.
I would say stick with a balanced portional diet and exercise.
Gastric bypass is not an easy option.
Things can go wrong and it does not teach you how to eat, it restricts your eating.
Most of those programs I have watched show people who have not learnt how to eat.
They still gorge but do nothing to compensate such.
Their health in the long term will be damaged.
If you want to eat 50 chcolate bars, do so, but it has to balance out.
Exercise it off etc.
Denying foods never work, you crave more.
Portion control works.
We all over eat. How many would own up to say that they eat the bodies recommended amount.
Such as how many of you actually eat a over the sizes below?:
cereal (1 c.) = a baseball
salad dressing (2 Tbsp.) = a shot glass
nuts (1 oz.) = a cupped palm
cheese (1 oz.) = a ping-pong ball
hamburger (3 oz.) = a mayo jar lid
peanut butter (1 tsp.) = one die
beef (3 oz.) = a bar of soap
rice (1/2 c.) = an ice cream scoop
potato = a computer mouse
dinner roll = a yo-yo
butter (1 tsp.) = a Scrabble tile
fruit (1 c.) = a tennis ball
cooked pasta (1/2 c.) = a golf ball
fish (3 oz.) = a checkbook
poultry (3 oz.) = a deck of playing cards
I can honestly answer I exceed those amounts.
I should know better but I still go over those amounts.
I know what I should eat but yet I still exceed the amounts as comparing those to a normal everyday meal, those portions look measly.
Yet is it what the body can deal with.
Why do we exceed these amounts?
Greed or? As we by enlarge lead a more seditntary life we should be eating less not more.
Yet we are eating larger portions than we can actually handle.
Why, is it media led?
If you are eating 5000 cals per day, and your body needs 2500.
Then you must exercise to lose the other 2500 excess or it will go to places you really don't want it.
As for the surgery, if you think such surgery is an easy option it is not.
You are tampering with a very complicated organ.
I should know I am suffering the complications that can occur and I don't have a gastric bypass.
The stomach, intestines and colons etc do work that is needed.
Don't touch them unless you have to.
This life I live is no life worth living and certainly not one for the sake of being skinny.
I am not that either my body is in starvation mode.
What I eat, when I can eat, goes striaght to fat.Fat that lines the abdominal area and organs.
If a gastic bypass is not managed it too will do exactly the same.
Eat what you want and balance it out with exercise and moderation.
It is better for your health and your life expectancy will be longer.
Hunger pains or noises, are often the colon or a need to intake fluids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by skeptigirl Check out the last half of part 6 on the ,"Why are thin people not fat?" People who lost 10% of their weight then fed sufficient calories felt like they were starving for months.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF.
The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material.
By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
The BNF has some good web pages on chemical feedback signals which influence feeding behaviour such as Leptin and Ghrenin:
E.g.,
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/home.asp...ion=301&which=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in November 2003 I was 320 pounds.
I lost 135 pounds with the aid of Weight Watchers and exercise by March 2005.
The big thing about Weight Watchers that I liked is that it teaches you that what your doing is changing your behavior.
One can't just go on a diet, lose the weight and the story is over.
I don't know how actually changing your diet and getting more exercise compares to surgery.
By seeing someone else at work go through it, it seems to me that surgery is a kind of a "forced diet".
One HAS to go on a diet because the stomach is so reduced but I was told that the stomach can be stretched out again.
I prefer to changing the way one eats and exercise to lose weight over the surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer Ultimately it does come down to will-power and effort.
The question is is the amount of will-power and effort required realistic for most people?
This is nonsense.
Just staying alive an adult requires about 1300kcal/day.
I completely agree with this.
This is why fad diets don't work.
I've learned that every time I have something to eat, it was MY decision.
Even when people made me feel guilty for not eating what they cooked, (I'm Italian - not eating what someone cooked is like telling someone to f off.
), it's still was my decision to eat something or not.
Another thing that helps me is planning ahead.
"Do I eat this now?
Or save my calories (or in the case of Weight Watchers, points), for later?" Weight Watchers has you write down everything you eat.
It's a pain, and a lot of other diet plans use that as a deterrent, but it's actually really crucial because people really forget what they do eat during the course of a day.
The third thing was a goal, of sorts.
I say to myself "do I eat this, or do I talk to hot women?" The choice is very easy that way.
Part of what helps the whole will power thing, I believe, is remember that one has a choice in the first place, and usually a lot more than just one choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's way more complicated than a calorie count
snip
Quote: : In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US.
He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day.
Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
It was with this in mind that 10 slim volunteers - who were not dieters - convened in more hospitable circumstances, for a recent experiment devised by the BBC's Horizon documentary.
The 10 spent four weeks gorging on as much pizza, chips, ice cream and chocolate as they could, while doing no exercise, and severely limiting the amount they walked.
'Friends hate me'
Medical student Katherine Hanan, 21, says she had never dieted or done very much exercise before the experiment.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ile_226282.jpg
Pre-experiment, Katherine Hanan: 'I've always eaten whatever I want to'
"I've always eaten whatever I want to eat and I've always been quite slim.
I'm really lucky and my friends hate me," she says.
During the study, Katherine and the other volunteers had to eat double their usual amount of daily calories, which varied from 3,500 for the women to 5,000 for the men.
The outcome of the trial could bolster the theories of Dr Rudy Leibel of Columbia University, New York, who believes we all have a biologically determined natural weight which our bodies make an effort to stick to, whether it is fat or thin.
"The body will constantly tend to try to bring you back to whatever your normal body weight is," he says.
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm
Do not hot-link.
I have replaced your image with a link.
Posted By:Professor Yaffle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Debaroo So - your friend can expand her caloric intake by making her stomach pouch bigger.
So - weight loss/gain depends on how many calories one consumes.
I think you are confusing a Bypass with a Lap-Band.
Lapbands are temporary (3 - 7 years max last I checked) bands around the stomach, dividing it into two pouches.
It has a subcutane reservoir that allows you to expand or contract the band.
A gastric bypass is much more permanent and requires some "rerouting" - basically permanently reducing stomach size as well as reducing adsorption rate a bit.
Because of this, depending on the method used, GBP patients require additional vitamin supplements.
With a bypass there is no "making your stomach pouch bigger" other than natural re-adjustment after surgery to compensate for swelling.
Originally Posted by skeptigirl
If it was just a matter of will power you should see a lot more weight loss success stories than you see.
~95% of the overweight population who try to lose weight fail at weight loss.
Lack of will power is not the reason for most of those people.
And there is a reason people who do lose a few pounds gain more back than they lost.
When that appetite kicks in people overeat.
These are biological drives, not simply will power issues.
.
From my experience this is very true.
Sure, it's easy to say it's "just" willpower and discipline - but in a lot of cases some form of counseling is required.
Either they have little to no nutritional education, or have emotional troubles and use food to cope and as an escape mechanism.
A lot of them will become desperate and try fad diets, or sign up with a trainer at a gym who loads them up with a completely unrealistic training program - so they lose hope.
Contrary to popular belief, constantly deriding a fatty does not really spur him to lose weight - it just drives them back to the only thing that makes them feel better for a while.
A lap band and bypass are TOOLS for weightloss - they are not solutions.
Neither of these surgeries will "lose the weight for you" as there are ways to "cheat" on both, especially if the person is a sweet tooth.
As a tool however, a lap band can teach someone who has no idea of proper portions when he is 'full', and to eat slower.
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer Ultimately it does come down to will-power and effort.
The question is is the amount of will-power and effort required realistic for most people?
This is nonsense.
Just staying alive an adult requires about 1300kcal/day.
Perhaps "sandwiches don't count" for your friend?
...and that is just the attitude I am talking about.
An attitude that can trigger anorexic episodes in people in recovery.
The "they are either lying or deluded" attitude.
While conveniently forgetting the people who do not gain.
For some reason, you do not question their ability to estimate their intake.
(And apart from that, this person does not eat sandwiches at all, for reasons best known to themselves.
Maybe they just don't like them.
So your choice of flippancy was unfortunate as well)
(Not everyone likes sandwiches - although I am told pbjs fuel the engineering industry.
Source: An Engineer's Guide to Cats)
Two things: if you read the entry, you will find that it says that weightloss does not happen until at about 500kcal/day.
This, I saw myself when we lived together and this person tried to lose weight eating nothing but extreme low cal nutrient powder.
It does not say that this person has chosen to make 500kcal/day a lifestyle.
This person has chosen to live with not losing the weight - and possibly put some on - rather than living like that.
It still does not come to 1300, though.
Secondly, there are plenty of cases where anorexics have lived on less for prolonged periods of time.
No one just ups and dies from missing a few meals.
If energy in/energy out was absolute, then it would not be a problem to be on 500kcal or less until such time that the extra body fat had been consumed by the body.
This is after all what the theory of in vs.
Out is all about.
In effect, you just discredited the theory by stating that it is impossible to live on less than 1300/day.
I myself have lived on less than 1300/day during times of poverty.
As I believe several forumites have.
I even held down a physically challenging job at the time.
It took much longer than I anticipated before I started losing body fat living like that.
Maybe because I had less to start out with than someone who is overweight.
(By less than overweight I mean that I started out with a BMI of about 23 - we can then discuss the value of BMI until the cows come home, but it is a different issue.)
The above is for the benefit of whoever can be bothered.
If past behaviour is any measure, that means that Ivor will either "misunderstand" a minor point and argue the toss about it, or simply dismiss it all as free fantasy.
But anyone interested in an honest, good faith discussion is welcome to chime in.
I am aware the these are personal experiences, and as such anecdotal.
(In before Ivor Quote: s this as a "win") Still people seem to require very varied amounts of food to reach varied levels of body fat.
And also: why do we disbelieve those who can't seem to shift the pounds, but gladly accept that some people can eat vast amounts and not build fat?
Why could not this phenomena go the other way?
Could it be that we consider being fat immoral and that we get a serotonin kick out of punishing the "offenders"?
We want them to be weak willed, slothful gluttons (and deluded liars to boot) because it makes us feel so damn good about ourselves?
Do you know how I stay trim?
I don't. My body does it for me.
It doesn't care a jot what I put in.
It didn't lose much when I was to poor to eat my fill, and it doesn't gain much when I can, despite going from lifting people in and out of beds and wheel chairs, or leading kids for hikes - to sitting on my ass programming all day long.
I certainly do not consider that to be skill, when I know damn well that I was lucky - and possibly had "good" genes.
One day, age might get to me too - it sure got my mum who went from being one of the "can't gain"-ers to "where did all this come from?" when she turned forty.
And we haven't even touched on insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome.
The effect of cortisol, or why schizophrenics often get fat deposits on the stomach even while the rest of the body remains slim.
At the moment there is research going on (which I have crunched some numbers on) about trying to eliminate weight gain as a side effect of certain psychopharmaca and one thing that came out of this was that stomach fat - even on a normal weight body - often followed also unmedicated schizophrenia.
Why?
But no - Ivor has the answer: every single person struggling to maintain their weight, in the entire known universe, is a glutton and a delusional liar.
Carefully omitting the fifteen sandwiches they have, while tallying up the two bags of Nutrilette per day.
(That's: "some Swedish equivalent of Slimfast" to anglophones)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And as for the op - I am not comfortable with the idea of gastric bypass or gastric banding.
But I can't imagine what it would be in the situation where you possibly need one.
I do have a friend who is "banded" and it has helped her lose some critically needed weight.
She started out morbidly obese and has lost about 60kgs in about 20 months.
She is happy with the weightloss and does not report any adverse events - but I don't know if she would if there were any.
I did not try to dissuade her from the surgery, but I also never discussed her weight with her.
To be frank, I did not know it bothered her so much that she would consider surgery - she did not share these feelings with me.
I do worry about long term effects, but I don't say this to her of course.
My main concern would be to wonder if she now needs to stay on extremely low intake for the rest of her life?
I'm not quite clear on how GB works, but to me it looks like a tool to keep you eating small amounts so in effect you are still dieting, but with an aid?
Say that she is now, roughly, eating at 10% of her former capacity.
What happens when she starts eating at 50% again?
Or will she have to either keep the band, or starve, for the rest of her life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw My main concern would be to wonder if she now needs to stay on extremely low intake for the rest of her life?
I'm not quite clear on how GB works, but to me it looks like a tool to keep you eating small amounts so in effect you are still dieting, but with an aid?
Say that she is now, roughly, eating at 10% of her former capacity.
What happens when she starts eating at 50% again?
Or will she have to either keep the band, or starve, for the rest of her life?
A band is not a bypass.
Depending on what kind of band she has, it'll last anywhere from 3 to 10 years but can be taken out at virtually any point.
Long term effects are highly dependant on how good the surgeon that gave you your band was - most common complications are the band slipping and preventing food intake, requiring new surgery, or a leak in the band.
If she really wanted to she could have it removed - most people tend to stick at the most restricted mode until they have reached their ideal weight, then gradually increase pouch size back to normal while learning better eating habits.
Adjusting the bands' size is usually done in hospital and takes 5 - 20minutes.
Also, if she has the band she won't be starving.
The whole point is feeling fuller, faster - so she may be eating 10% of her capicity, she'll feel just as full as if she just had a 4 course dinner - though she'll be hungrier again faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Debaroo I've been watching several programs where people have used gastric bypass or lapband surgery to aid in weight loss.
It appears that all of these people have tried diets in past without success and have often said that surgery was their last resort.
Is not weight loss surgery just a form of calorie restriction?
Does this not mean that restricting caloric intake will result in weight loss?
Yes, and yes.
Observe how few of the concentration camp victims in the old WWII pictures were overweight.
If you eat few enough calories for a long enough time, you WILL lose weight (if you don't die from other causes first).
Weight loss surgery is a really serious step;
I would hope that "all of these people have tried diets in past without success," because that's one of the necessary clinical precursers before any reputable surgeon would even consider doing the surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|