What is the difference between........

Surgery is invasive and I know 2 people who have had major complications.

One got a staph infection, the other, the band broke when she over ate and started attaching to her liver.

So, I worry about things like that with the surgery.

So the surgery also has the physiological effect of making one feel full faster. You now have a small space to fill and, also, because of that... you have less room to put food in it. You're right - it's a way to force someone to eat less calories.

The surgery has so many potential complications. You can get malabsorption disorders, have dumping syndromes, etc. It's the rough way to go... but we live in a generation of, "I want it now and want it without doing it myself." Most doctors now require people to have several months of counseling prior to partaking in the surgery but for many, it doesn't make any long lasting changes. People still eat what they want and make themselves sick in the process. And sometimes, it's the most helpful option for some people...

But it's not the same as skipping a meal. I don't think. It should be the same, though, as a calorie restricted diet.

Typically, it is considered "less bad" for very overweight or obese people to have a high deficit and to lose weight quickly.

I understand what you're saying though, and agree that it's strange. You'll come to find there are a lot of double standards around here...

If you are talking about the calorie restriction and where the "starvation mode" comes in, there is no difference. That's why I say that with overweight people, the starvation mode myth is just that - a MYTH. If you are extremely overweight, a low calorie diet is not going to keep you from losing weight. It is not sustainable for long term obviously, but it makes for a good start. I, however, am very much against the bariatric surgeries. They cause more complications than they help. Anybody can lose weight by healthy eating and moving their body if they truly want to.

Case in point, I have a friend who had the surgery in November. In January, my cousin started MFP and ate a 1500-1600 calorie diet daily. They started out at the same weight. The surgery patient (who remember had a 2 month head start), now only weighs a few pounds different than the person who started eating and exercising properly instead of just restricting her calories.

The surgery sounds like an easy fix, but it's not. I've heard the medications, the restrictions....it just sounds horrible. You have to prepare to even have the surgery and adhere to a dramatic lifestyle change post surgery to avoid complications and yes, you CAN gain the weight back. There really are very few similarities between the two.

Not sure if this answers your question but...

With Bariatric surgery, you should still eat a little bit at every meal, and not necessarily skip a meal. You have to eat many small meals, as they suggest you do anyway. So, in essence, Bariatric Surgery is supposed to HELP you eat how they suggest you eat anyway and not gorge at each meal or once or twice a day.

Skipping meals isnt good because while it lowers your calorie intake for use throughout the day...restricts your body from getting the nutrients and vitamins to get through the day.

They say eat smaller, more frequent meals during the day to give your body a constant source of energy. If you took all of your calories and ate them once during the day, that "energy" will not last your body for the whole day.

PROOF (as with many I have read on here): My husband is notorious for eating dinner and nothing else for the day. He couldnt figure out why he wasnt losing weight and he was actually gaining, eventhough he wasnt getting his total calorie intake for the day. We started on Weight Watchers and he was forced to eat more smaller meals through the day. He found he had more energy to get through the day, actually had a hard time meeting his calorie goal for the day, and was dropping weight quickly.

Your body needs a constant source of something to keep the "energy" and your metabolism going constantly. Some may not agree but, I have seen it work too many times to NOT agree with it.

I don't think they're significantly different, really. Surgery isn't magic; it makes your stomach smaller so you eat less. If you fill that tiny stomach compartment with fudge and still eat thousands of calories, you won't see that dramatic weight loss. That's why there's usually so much counseling and long-term follow-up with those surgeries.

I hear what you're saying about the double standard in terms of people's reactions though. Honestly, I have no clue what "skipping meals" is even supposed to mean. As long as you eat again, how has anything been skipped? Hasn't it just been delayed? Is there some meal quota or something I don't know about?

There are times that I just plain old feel hungry and you (well I) wonder, is this the "starvation mode" that everyone speaks of?
I have lost weight doing that, I've been just so depressed that food isn't appealing to me and the feeling I got from that weight loss was wonderful, but then I was happy again and began to feel hungry, was I just hungry that whole time and because of the depression wasn't able to feel the hungry?

Depression can do a lot of crazy things to you. If it's a repeated or chronic problem for you, it might be worth seeing a doctor about. Depression is really nothing to mess around with or dismiss.

Feeling hungry is not the same as "starvation mode." Feeling hungry is completely normal; it is your body's way of telling you to eat. If you lose weight because you are simply not eating, then you are likely experiencing actual hunger. When it becomes a problem is when you feel "hungry" when it's really boredom or stress or something else masquerading as physical hunger, as well as feeding your body the wrong things.