gastric bypass etc

LAWoman72 wrote: »

A lot of people are saying surgery is not a quick fix, it doesn't change hunger signals nor the degree of hunger, and that the same work goes into post-WLS as without it: diet and exercise. I think that is why some of us have the confusion as to why the surgery is necessary. I don't think people are trying to be narrow-minded or flippant. We may all be missing something here (that is possible) but if the WLS patient still has to do exactly the same things as s/he would have to do, why did s/he get the surgery...I think that's the question.

I would feel differently if people were saying that at least, the degree of hunger were changed. But without even that...what HAS changed for the patient except that s/he may throw up, etc. from larger portion sizes, especially considering the fact that WLS can and sometimes do "eat around" that factor (by smaller but more frequent meals, for example)?

I hear over and over again, "It is still just as much work." If it is AS MUCH work then why have the surgery that permanently alters your system...I think that's the question here. This is compounded by the fact that in some cases, the reasoning that the patient can't lose weight without WLS opposes the patient being required by his/her doctor to lose X amount of weight pre-surgery, and the patient accomplishing that.

So I don't think these questions are unreasonable, or even uneducated/due to ignorance. The questions make perfect sense.

With that said, I'm happy for anyone who wants to lose weight, and finds a way to do so.

Most of the people who have wls would have to work for years to get the weight off. Problem is, they don't *have* years to accomplish this.
Pair that with the hormone imbalance, disease and sedentary lifestyle that comes from too much weight and you can figure out why the surgery is needed.
The reason why they don't just continue loosing weight is because they have a high chance if dying before it's done.

Wls does decrease hormonal production so that patients feel less hunger, BUT as anyone overweight knows, hunger is rarely the reason why people overeat. No one gets to 500lbs because they are peckish. So yes, the surgery allows people to eat what is basically a starvation diet without the body rebelling in a serious way (which it does both mentally and physically, it's gruesome) nobody (sans eating disorder) on a slow diet would do that to themselves.

My resource:
https://asmbs.org/patients/benefits-of-bariatric-surgery

All that said I think the reason ppl are upset is the insinuation that ppl with wls haven't suffered enough. Humanity has agreed that wrongdoing MUST be punished, and by suggesting that those with wls haven't suffered enough you(relative you) are in turn suggesting that being fat is a crime. That is why you have someone like me, who is not eligible for this surgery, speaking out. Being fat is NOT a crime, it does not deserve punishment. But Anything other than full out penance is seen as cheating, why? Can't we just accept that ppl take different paths to the same place? If we are meeting at the park and I walk the mile from my house and you drive the 10mi from yours can I judge you for using a car?

jgnatca wrote: »

By the way, I get the same hunger signals as I ever had, but I get full a lot faster. It takes planning to make sure I get enough protein in to avoid nasty side-effects. It's a lot less planning than when I was monitoring my blood sugars though. I'm off all medications (yay!) but must continue with vitamins for life (boo!). To avoid selfsame side-effects of surgery.

I am training for my first 5K. I am accepting professional help for this too (physiotherapist), but perhaps you see that as a "cheat" as well. Is my anti-pronating running shoe a "cheat"? My daughter mentioned that she was expecting me to continue to gain weight and lose mobility through retirement, and that she is so terribly proud of me. This weight loss means I've added ten years to my lifespan and all the vitality that goes with it. All in all for the health and mobility gains, it's been worth it!

But of course, 123, you are free to ignore my posts if they are too irritating for you.

Being a sleever, I agree with you jgnatca. Prior to surgery, we had to eat less, hungry or not. In fact, I lost about 20 lbs on the pre-surgery diet. I messed up my shin and back and was only lightly physically active which slowed down my progress. I used the sleeve as a tool, just like any other person who has had the surgery. Its not an "I Dream of Jeanie" fix like a lot of people think it is. If nothing else 1234usmc, your venting actually gave the gastric surgery community the opportunity to let people know that having the surgery is nothing instant like a diet miracle, it still takes making sensible choices and adding physical activity to your lifestyle.
I lost 100 lbs within 6 months. As a result, I no longer am diabetic (My Dr. moved me to pre-diabetic at my last appointment), I no longer need hypertension meds (I was taking 2) and I was able to drop one of my cholesterol meds ( I still have the hereditary cholesterol). I am also off the daily prilosec. I am able to walk over an hour without having to huff and puff and climb stairs with little issue. Something I was unable to do 100 lbs. ago. When I don't keep my eyes on the prize, I can gain as much as 10lbs over a 2 day period. Takes me 4 days of hyper clean eating to get back down so I still know that I have to sacrifice and workout to keep losing or maintain where I want to be.
Thank you, 1234usmc, for your comments and keep posting.

My sister had the sleeve. After many years of yo-yo diets and depression, it gave her the confidence that she COULD lose weight. She had totally lost faith in the process (eat less, move more), and this gave it back to her. She's lost a lot of weight and is a completely different person now. I am FOR surgery, when a person is ready for it.

The problem with gastric bypass or any other surgical procedure is that it treats a symptom and not the root cause. Additionally the enzymatic regimen one must abide by for the rest of their life surgery is certainly not an easy option in the long term, although the short term gains are certainly appealing. It is a short term strategy and should only be used as a last resort.

See now, right here...

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

But Anything other than full out penance is seen as cheating, why? Can't we just accept that ppl take different paths to the same place? If we are meeting at the park and I walk the mile from my house and you drive the 10mi from yours can I judge you for using a car?

...you are the one who is judging. It's that presumption that "It's so much harder for us (WLS patients or people considering WLS)." When I started out losing weight, I had nearly 100 pounds to lose. I still have close to 70 to go. I don't presume that it's "so much easier" for someone who only has 50 lbs., or 20 lbs., to lose. You are making the judgments, not I. And I see that a lot, frankly.

I never said WLS was "cheating." I asked legitimate questions. You answered them - thank you. But I asked - I didn't point a finger nor bring out an unlikely analogy, as you did.

When you make that comparison that presumes it's a piece of cake for us 100-lb.-to-lose (or less) people compared to WLS people (which is weird because at 100 lbs. overweight I would have been a candidate for WLS), it is you who are making judgments, wagging a finger, and minimizing another's struggles.

I appreciate your taking the time to give legitimate answers, as I asked legitimate questions, but the judging and minimizing add-ons weren't necessary and, as I said, seem pretty common in these WLS threads. How about not minimizing the next person's struggle and waving away that person's hard work so that you can support WLS? In the end WLS is a choice, as is not having WLS and dieting/exercising without it. Thanks in advance for being more considerate and thoughtful in the future.

"Can't we just accept that ppl take different paths to the same place?" I can, which is why I asked questions, pointed out why the questions were being asked, and didn't pre-judge you nor minimize and toss aside your struggles as basically no possible comparison to mine, using inflated analogies designed to make your weight loss journey look like a snap of the fingers and mine like the Trail of Tears.

Further to the above (sorry, didn't want to edit as it will be too long and someone may answer the post in the meantime) - this:

"Most of the people who have wls would have to work for years to get the weight off. Problem is, they don't *have* years to accomplish this.
Pair that with the hormone imbalance, disease and sedentary lifestyle that comes from too much weight and you can figure out why the surgery is needed.
The reason why they don't just continue loosing weight is because they have a high chance if dying before it's done."

On what basis do you make this diagnosis...that they "have a high chance of dying before it's done"? Many WLS patients have been the weight they're at for years; many have also had comorbid conditions for years. Some have been obese the majority of their lives. Some have been at their current weight for five years. Some for 20 years. Some are in their 40s and have been morbidly obese since their teens. I can see a doctor making the judgment, on an individual, case-by-case basis, that they "don't have years," but how are you doing so...for "most" WLS patients?

You don't have to be a My 600-Lb. Life candidate to be a candidate for WLS. From what I understand, WLS basically relies on a BMI of 40 or more - with or without comorbidity. As I understand it, lower BMI if there are comorbidities. For a 5'6" person, that's only 250 lbs. For me, at 5'1", that would only be 210 lbs. (10 lbs. lower than my highest weight). Would you say that I was likely to die before losing weight when I was 210 lbs.? I didn't - and I was there for three years. And only about 10 lbs. under WLS candidacy for 11 years (but still considered morbidly obese). Would you have made the judgment that I was likely to die without the WLS at some point during that time?

I wish you had just stuck with legitimate explanations, but you had to "go there" in a number of ways that just aren't accurate and that you can't possibly decide from afar...IMO. And all based on your presumption that everyone who doesn't fully understand WLS v. dieting and exercising without it is making some judgment. Ironically, you're actually the one making the judgments and sweeping presumptions. IMO, that detracts from the message and really doesn't "educate" people any better. You're saying others are ignorant, meanwhile making fatality diagnoses from afar about a huge category of people and stating as categorical fact that the struggle of a non-WLS patient can't possibly compare to that of a WLS patient - we're only walking a mile, they're trying to walk 10. Really, if you want to be spreading "correct" information then you should be doing just that. But as long as you're deciding not to do that, you might want to beg off accusing others of same.

LAWoman72 wrote: »

See now, right here...

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

But Anything other than full out penance is seen as cheating, why? Can't we just accept that ppl take different paths to the same place? If we are meeting at the park and I walk the mile from my house and you drive the 10mi from yours can I judge you for using a car?

...you are the one who is judging. It's that presumption that "It's so much harder for us (WLS patients or people considering WLS)." When I started out losing weight, I had nearly 100 pounds to lose. I still have close to 70 to go. I don't presume that it's "so much easier" for someone who only has 50 lbs., or 20 lbs., to lose. You are making the judgments, not I. And I see that a lot, frankly.

I never said WLS was "cheating." I asked legitimate questions. You answered them - thank you. But I asked - I didn't point a finger nor bring out an unlikely analogy, as you did.

When you make that comparison that presumes it's a piece of cake for us 100-lb.-to-lose (or less) people compared to WLS people (which is weird because at 100 lbs. overweight I would have been a candidate for WLS), it is you who are making judgments, wagging a finger, and minimizing another's struggles.

I appreciate your taking the time to give legitimate answers, as I asked legitimate questions, but the judging and minimizing add-ons weren't necessary and, as I said, seem pretty common in these WLS threads. How about not minimizing the next person's struggle and waving away that person's hard work so that you can support WLS? In the end WLS is a choice, as is not having WLS and dieting/exercising without it. Thanks in advance for being more considerate and thoughtful in the future.

"Can't we just accept that ppl take different paths to the same place?" I can, which is why I asked questions, pointed out why the questions were being asked, and didn't pre-judge you nor minimize and toss aside your struggles as basically no possible comparison to mine, using inflated analogies designed to make your weight loss journey look like a snap of the fingers and mine like the Trail of Tears.

It was an analogy, and if you read before that I suggested a relative "you" so that comment was not actually directed towards you or anyone in particular.

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

LAWoman72 wrote: »

Further to the above (sorry, didn't want to edit as it will be too long and someone may answer the post in the meantime) - this:

"Most of the people who have wls would have to work for years to get the weight off. Problem is, they don't *have* years to accomplish this.
Pair that with the hormone imbalance, disease and sedentary lifestyle that comes from too much weight and you can figure out why the surgery is needed.
The reason why they don't just continue loosing weight is because they have a high chance if dying before it's done."

On what basis do you make this diagnosis...that they "have a high chance of dying before it's done"? Many WLS patients have been the weight they're at for years; many have also had comorbid conditions for years. Some have been obese the majority of their lives. Some have been at their current weight for five years. Some for 20 years. Some are in their 40s and have been morbidly obese since their teens. I can see a doctor making the judgment, on an individual, case-by-case basis, that they "don't have years," but how are you doing so...for "most" WLS patients?

You don't have to be a My 600-Lb. Life candidate to be a candidate for WLS. From what I understand, WLS basically relies on a BMI of 40 or more - with or without comorbidity. As I understand it, lower BMI if there are comorbidities. For a 5'6" person, that's only 250 lbs. For me, at 5'1", that would only be 210 lbs. (10 lbs. lower than my highest weight). Would you say that I was likely to die before losing weight when I was 210 lbs.? I didn't - and I was there for three years. And only about 10 lbs. under WLS candidacy for 11 years (but still considered morbidly obese). Would you have made the judgment that I was likely to die without the WLS at some point during that time?

I wish you had just stuck with legitimate explanations, but you had to "go there" in a number of ways that just aren't accurate and that you can't possibly decide from afar...IMO. And all based on your presumption that everyone who doesn't fully understand WLS v. dieting and exercising without it is making some judgment. Ironically, you're actually the one making the judgments and sweeping presumptions. IMO, that detracts from the message and really doesn't "educate" people any better. You're saying others are ignorant, meanwhile making fatality diagnoses from afar about a huge category of people and stating as categorical fact that the struggle of a non-WLS patient can't possibly compare to that of a WLS patient - we're only walking a mile, they're trying to walk 10. Really, if you want to be spreading "correct" information then you should be doing just that. But as long as you're deciding not to do that, you might want to beg off accusing others of same.

I got that information from the paper I linked to, plus another one linked by someone else up thread.

That wasn't "a paper," it was an article produced by an organization promoting bariatric surgery, that made sweeping statements without links to the "studies" they kept referring to.

Not saying the studies don't exist, but what were they? And what did they actually show/state? What were the conditions of the study? Anyone can summarize someone else's paper - and be accurate about it or not, and leave in or take out important parts of the study at will.

I will look upthread to see what the other person you referenced posted to see what it says. Hopefully it's a study.

.

@LAWoman72 my response thought you were replying to my link, which it was not (I think), so I deleted it.

My link from the Cleveland Clinic has 87 studies referenced in proper format. Feel free to look up any and all of them at your leisure - no "sweeping" generalizations in there.