 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2008Dad Must Lose 80 Pounds To Give Kidney To Daughter
http://cbs13.com/local/weight.loss.kidney.2.798314.html Aug 18, 2008 9:40 pm US/Pacific Dad Must Lose 80 Pounds To Give Kidney To Daughter SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ? A man's 16-year-old daughter desperately needs a new kidney, and he is her only match, but before a transplant can take place, he must lose at least 80 pounds. At 6'4", 270 pounds, the 40-year-old Navy veteran is trying to change the way he looks, the way he eats and the way he exercises. Herb Barber used to be a wrestler, so he knows about intense physical challenges. "It's one of the few sports that controls your whole life, as far as fitness goes," Herb said. Since birth, his daughter Teniya has had complications with her kidney. If dad wants to give her one of his, doctors say he needs to lose as much as 80 pounds, both for the health of the kidney and for his recovery after surgery. "The first 90 days, I'm shooting for 50 pounds," Herb said. Teniya's kidney function was down to just 20% when she became pregnant last year. She was told her condition would likely kill either her or the baby, but she had her daughter anyway. Both survived. Teniya's kidney function decreased to just 9%. Doctors told her she'll either need a transplant or dialysis for the rest of her life. She'd prefer the latter, but Herb is preparing for the former. "It will be her choice, but it's my choice to get ready if they go the transplant route," Herb said. Herb and Teniya are tracking his progress in a blog, "80 pounds of heart." Herb hasn't been under 200 pounds in ten years. He's a father of eight, grandfather of two, and says he comes from a big family. He says his effort to get smaller could ensure that it stays that way. > "The first 90 days, I'm shooting for 50 pounds," Herb said. Faced with a choice of losing 80 pounds to be able to donate a kidney to my daughter I'd live on a handful of raw veggies and spend all evening working out every evening. Like the folks on "The Biggest Loser" it would work. Completely and utterly unsustainable but right now the point isn't sustainability. There are times in life when fast loss without counting the long term cost is appropriate. Dieting for swim suit season isn't it. Dieting because of what you see in the mirror isn't it. Dieting because you have sore feet constantly isn't it. Life or death, this is the primary example of when fast loss at all costs beats any issue of sustainability. He can worry about sustainability of the loss when his scar is healed. Normally my comment would run like - A pound of fat is a marathon. Losing that fast would take spending a month building a a marathon every day and then doing a marathon every day from there on. So who would ever be able to sustain that level of unreasonable motivation? Better to target a possible loss rate. But my normal comment doesn't apply in this case. Life and death is indeed exactly the type of motivation to be able to sustain this "The Biggest Loser" type of effort. Six four and 190? He'll be very thin at that point. No way does he need to lose that much before they will agree to the surgery. But even that's good new - If he really does run a marathon each and every day or equivalent exercise to lose a pound a day it will be sooner than 90 days before the doctors okay the surgery. Sooner is better in this case. "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in > Six four and 190? He'll be very thin at that point. No way > does he need to lose that much before they will agree to the > surgery. I'm wondering what's really going on here! I'm six one at 260 and don't think I'm so obese that any operation is not feasible! He's got a lot of dense muscle too, so he'll look like skin and bone at 220. What are these doctors thinking? I've seen major operations on people that are 400 lbs and up!!!! > > "The first 90 days, I'm shooting for 50 pounds," Herb said. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Six four and 190? Michael Phelps is 6'4" and weighs 195. >He'll be very thin at that point. No way > does he need to lose that much before they will agree to the > surgery. But even that's good new - If he really does run a > marathon each and every day or equivalent exercise to lose a > pound a day it will be sooner than 90 days before the doctors > okay the surgery. Sooner is better in this case. I agree, 270 for that height isn't that overweight. > > Six four and 190? > > Michael Phelps is 6'4" and weighs 195. Using a comparison with the most elite althete in history shows exactly how insane such a weight goal is for a regular human of that height. Getting in shape is one thing. Buff is good. But trying to emulate the size of the most elite athlete in history is a sure fire road to unending self inflicted hunger and frustration. Note that follow up says the doctors recommended a lot less loss and this goal was of his own selection - I take this as a lesson of exactly how irrational self chosen goals tend to be. Oh yeah, I'll just diet and exercise for a year and I'll have the figure of Michael Phelps. Yup, uh huh, sure thing. In comic book land where everyone looks like Batman. Not that there's anything wrong with having a figure like Michael Phelps. If you want to spend your entire life starting in elementary school doing intense exercise every hour you can and viewing it as your day job all summer, more power to you. But anyone who thinks it's a realistic goal for randomly picked person who didn't start the plan during elementary school is a nut. > I agree, 270 for that height isn't that overweight. It's not buff either. I get that part at least. But size for size I've known folks 6'4" who were a lot bigger and in good health. Farther from buff but still in good health. Far enough from buff that running a 10K would be out of the question. Repeating - I take this as a lesson of exactly how irrational self chosen goals tend to be. No wonder show many folks stall well above their goal weights - Chose an irrational goal weight and it takes starvation or Olympic levels of exercise to get there. "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in >> I agree, 270 for that height isn't that overweight. > It's not buff either. I get that part at least. But size for size I've known folks 6'4" who were a lot bigger and in good health. Farther from buff but still in good health. Far enough from buff that running a 10K would be out of the question. Talking about former weight, I remember when I was going to college and weighing 180 @ 6'1" I was also living on a diet of Popcorn and diet Pepsi with the odd baloney sandwich as a luxury treat. When I married at 24 and started eating like a normal person, I shot to 220. At 49, I look at those photos an can only wish I was 220 again!!!!! LOL I think the notion that fat is bad in this society has gone to the extreme, even a little fat around the bones is needed to survive, we would be dead without it. Seems all these bowflex commercials are promising unrealistic results and creating a false image of true physical fitness. I'm really sure those actors got that ripped in 20 minutes a day! LOL medical science has proven itself wrong on so many issues, who is to say this BMI index isn't misguided too or worse yet funded by the diet industry to make us all think we are obese when carrying just 25 Ibs of a fat on our bones? Who said we are supposed to be in prime shape all our lives? > "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Farther from buff but still in good health. Far enough from > buff that running a 10K would be out of the question. Actually 270 pounds at 6'4" is clinically obese per the BMI standards and that is regardless of age. > Talking about former weight, I remember when I was going to college and > weighing 180 @ 6'1" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 220. > At 49, I look at those photos an can only wish I was 220 again!!!!! LOL Well normal people in this day and age don't eat healthy. They eat too much overall and eat way too much fat. The today's "normal" diet isn't healthy at all. The "normal " diet of today is a far cry from how my parents (and I) ate when I was a kid. I'm returning to that style of eating and the weight is rolling off. > I think the notion that fat is bad in this society has gone to the > extreme, even a little fat around the bones is needed to survive, we would > be dead without it. Seems all these bowflex commercials are promising > unrealistic results and creating a false image of true physical fitness. > I'm really sure those actors got that ripped in 20 minutes a day! LOL I agree that the bowflex commercials are a bit unrealistic. > medical science has proven itself wrong on so many issues, who is to say > this BMI index isn't misguided too or worse yet funded by the diet > industry to make us all think we are obese when carrying just 25 Ibs of a > fat on our bones? > Who said we are supposed to be in prime shape all our lives? The BMI charts don't list a specific number of pounds of fat. The BMI charts don't require you to be in prime shape all our lives. For any given height, there is a very wide range of weight that is considered healthy. The high end for my height will still leave me with a little bit of extra pudginess in disguisable spots. In addition the BMI charts also show the low end below which one is also generally considered at extra risk of health issues. Insurance companies, doctors, and health organizations all use these same charts. They weren't developed or funded by the diet industry. "Dee Flint" <deeflint01@comcast.net> wrote in > Insurance companies, doctors, and health organizations all use these same > charts. They weren't developed or funded by the diet industry. There's your first clue about why these charts were written and who uses them for their own advantage. Problem with the American diet is there's not enough fat to sugar ratio, Americans consume far more sugar than fat, starting with their supposed health cereals! Hmmm, now we have an obesity epidemic!!!! A good target for carbs consumed would be around 80 grams or less a day. One slice of whole wheat bread is around 25 grams, so a sandwich along with lite non fat mayo will cost you about 60 grams. What do you do for the rest of the day? > "Dee Flint" <deeflint01@comcast.net> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with lite non fat mayo will cost you about 60 grams. What do you do for > the rest of the day? Not sure what you are trying to say here. Doctor's lose money if people stay healthy. Insurance companies make money if people stay healthy. Health organizations tend to lose funding if people stay healthy. Yet all agree on the BMI charts. >> "Dee Flint" <deeflint01@comcast.net> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Yet all agree on the BMI charts. Yes they all agree, make the values on the charts so low that people think they need the help of professionals to get to those unrealistic numbers. >>> "Dee Flint" <deeflint01@comcast.net> wrote in >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Yes they all agree, make the values on the charts so low that people think > they need the help of professionals to get to those unrealistic numbers. They are not unrealistic. They consistently line up with body fat measurements for most people also. Just because most US citizens happen to overeat or eat the wrong kinds of foods yet believe the are eating healthy, doesn't make them unrealistic. Just because some people need professional help to learn to eat correctly doesn't make them unrealistic. One way or another, they have to learn that a Big Mac with fries and a drink (supersized) is way too much food and the wrong kind of food. Now that I have switched to eating the correct amount of healthy food, I am rapidly approaching the what I weighed in my 20s, which was in the middle of that range for my height. In addition, the range on weight in the healthy BMI range for each height is huge. For my height, that range is 30 pounds. That's a lot of wiggle room. >> Yet all agree on the BMI charts. > > Yes they all agree, make the values on the charts so low that people think > they need the help of professionals to get to those unrealistic numbers. Whaaaaaat? The numbers are generous. You can ``sport'' a belly and love handles, and yet have a BMI in the normal range. The BMI charts for a healthy weight range for someone 6'4" gives a weight range of 164 to 205. Therefore 195 pounds is certainly reasonable for some one who is NOT an elite athlete. It's actually closer to the high end of the BMI range. This individual certainly won't have a Michael Phelps physique as he will have a different balance of muscle and body fat. "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Six four and 190? > > Michael Phelps is 6'4" and weighs 195. Using a comparison with the most elite althete in history shows exactly how insane such a weight goal is for a regular human of that height. Getting in shape is one thing. Buff is good. But trying to emulate the size of the most elite athlete in history is a sure fire road to unending self inflicted hunger and frustration. Note that follow up says the doctors recommended a lot less loss and this goal was of his own selection - I take this as a lesson of exactly how irrational self chosen goals tend to be. Oh yeah, I'll just diet and exercise for a year and I'll have the figure of Michael Phelps. Yup, uh huh, sure thing. In comic book land where everyone looks like Batman. Not that there's anything wrong with having a figure like Michael Phelps. If you want to spend your entire life starting in elementary school doing intense exercise every hour you can and viewing it as your day job all summer, more power to you. But anyone who thinks it's a realistic goal for randomly picked person who didn't start the plan during elementary school is a nut. > I agree, 270 for that height isn't that overweight. It's not buff either. I get that part at least. But size for size I've known folks 6'4" who were a lot bigger and in good health. Farther from buff but still in good health. Far enough from buff that running a 10K would be out of the question. Repeating - I take this as a lesson of exactly how irrational self chosen goals tend to be. No wonder show many folks stall well above their goal weights - Chose an irrational goal weight and it takes starvation or Olympic levels of exercise to get there. > The BMI charts for a healthy weight range for someone 6'4" gives a weight > range of 164 to 205. Therefore 195 pounds is certainly reasonable for some > one who is NOT an elite athlete. Elite athletes could go either way. Renowned marathoner Derek Clayton, who ran a personal best of 2:08:33 back in 1969, weighed 165 pounds at 6'4". And at that weight, he was considered a behemoth, and an unlikely champion. He is known among runners developing his ``Clayton Shuffle'' running style---keeping the feet close to the ground and minimizing vertical motion of the body for maximum efficiency, which compensated for his large body weight. Distance runner Alan Culpepper is listed as 6'1" and 130 pounds, according to the bio information at the USATF web site, which is quite freakish! A 195 pound elite athlete who is 6'4" tall is probably in a power sport, in which a large body mass is somewhat of a hindrance, but not too much. In elite sport, we find everything from exceptionally low muscle mass, to exceptionally high muscle mass. > "Tin@" <tinas49...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > exactly how insane such a weight goal is for a regular human > of that height. That depends on whether it's an endurance athlete or a power athlete. Michael Phelps definitely represents the heavier end of the weight range for a 6'4" male. His reason for being that heavy is that he is well-muscled. On the other hand, a 6'4" male of average muscle mass weighing 195 is pretty darn fat; it's a lame target weight for someone who isn't shooting for muscularity. > Note that follow up says the doctors recommended a lot less > loss and this goal was of his own selection - I take this as a > lesson of exactly how irrational self chosen goals tend to be. But that ex-Navy guy had been under 200 pounds before, in fact only ten years ago, so the article says. As a former wrestler and Navy man, he probably knows his body well. A weight that he had achieved before is not unrealistic. >> I agree, 270 for that height isn't that overweight. > > It's not buff either. I get that part at least. But size for size > I've known folks 6'4" who were a lot bigger and in good health. In other words, fit and fat. Sounds like the kind of rhetoric they crosspost from soc.support.fat-acceptance. > Farther from buff but still in good health. Far enough from > buff that running a 10K would be out of the question. Running 10K should be something that you can knock off every weekday on your lunch break. > Repeating - I take this as a lesson of exactly how irrational > self chosen goals tend to be. No wonder show many folks > stall well above their goal weights - Chose an irrational goal Most of the cited goal weights you see in Usenet postings and elsewhere are, on the contrary, laughably lenient. That's ridiculous.. why on earth would a 6'4 man who was a wrestler have to be under 200 lbs for a surgery? That's too thin for him... I'm calling this one bull... I might be wrong, but if I am, some doctors have lost their mind. Will~ > http://cbs13.com/local/weight.loss.kidney.2.798314.html > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > family. He says his effort to get smaller could ensure that it stays that > way. > I'm calling this one bull... I might be wrong, but if I am, some doctors > have lost their mind. I'm betting Doctors HAVE lost their minds... On Aug 19, 11:50 am, "Willow Herself" <willowki...@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote: > That's ridiculous.. why on earth would a 6'4 man who was a wrestler have to > be under 200 lbs for a surgery? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don’t think they’ve lost their mind. I just think that some doctors don’t always know what the right course of action should really be in all cases, so they wing it. It’s a small wonder why medical errors before, during and after surgery cost employers an estimated 1.5 billion annually. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2008/surgerrpr.htm Ragnar > On Aug 19, 11:50 am, "Willow Herself" > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ragnar The blog says that he needs to be under 235 for the surgery, and then he says “but to be in great shape he would like to be around 200”. The blog also says he is starting at 280. As for how light he needs to be for the surgery, it is not just what a safe weight is for the operation but what a safe weight is to keep his one remaining kidney healthy. If he had a kidney removed at 280 there would be a lot of stress on the remaining kidney. You have to be in pretty good shape to be allowed to donate a kidney. Needing to loss weight to donate a kidney is not at all uncommon, and he would have to loss it afterwards anyway so it is better to do it up before. BTW I was 210 when I lost a kidney 11 months ago, I am now at 188 and still dropping. I figure I need to get to around 170. Scott >I dont think theyve lost their mind. I just think that some doctors >dont always know what the right course of action should really be in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2008/surgerrpr.htm The cost of obesity to employers is much higher (see below). Quit promoting obesity and tell your fat c.nt wife to lose weight , Ragtard. AAOHN J. 2006 Dec;54(12):515-20. Changing the work environment to promote wellness: a focus group study.Gates D, Brehm B, Hutton S, Singler M, Poeppelman A. College of Nursing, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. It is estimated that employers spend more than 75 billion dollars annually on obesity-attributable health care. Interventions to reduce or prevent the risk of obesity are increasingly common at worksites and include health fairs, weight loss and nutrition classes, and fitness programs. However, many companies lack the resources to plan and implement these types of programs. Environmental approaches offer companies a low-cost option. A community-based participatory research model was used to bring academic researchers, human resources personnel, and health department educators together to plan and implement an environmental program aimed at increasing healthy eating and physical activity at four small manufacturing companies. The Diffusion of Innovations Theory guided the development of focus group questions. A focus group study was then conducted to gather information from employees and managers at these four companies. The questions identified workplace strategies that would aid in reducing barriers and developing appropriate communication channels to enhance employee participation in the program. The researchers identified themes from manager and employee focus groups regarding the following five environmental components: signs, walking paths, food changes, educational strategies, and advisory groups. > The cost of obesity to employers is much higher (see below). Quit > promoting obesity and tell your fat c.nt wife to lose weight , Ragtard. There is the sign of a fear-riddled, hating kind of person - the accusation of "promoting obesity". What's Lee so terrified of? > AAOHN J. 2006 Dec;54(12):515-20. > > It is estimated that employers spend more than 75 billion dollars annually > on obesity-attributable health care. Don't you know that everything that goes wrong with a fat person is attributed to the fat? Robin > It is estimated that employers spend more than 75 billion dollars annually > on obesity-attributable health care. $75 billion anually on the healthcare of obese people you mean. Most fat people have their "early warning signs" brushed off by medical professionals, while skinny people get early treatments that prevent major problems. Once it becomes obvious that it's not weight related, it is too late for the cheep cures. The problem isn't fat people, it's an incompetent medical system. > Interventions to reduce or prevent the > risk of obesity are increasingly common at worksites and include health > fairs, weight loss and nutrition classes, and fitness programs. My employer offers a company paid "stop smoking" program. But they don't offer a company paid "diet" program. If you want to give/donate an organ to your private family then how is this anyone's business especially our government? If wanted to donate a kidney to my son then there shouldn't be any requirements or rules that the government has setup. It's not there business what I decide to do, it is also no individuals business who I donate a kidney too, how I donate it either. When did we sign away our individual rights? Is this some Democrat law designed to be the big brother? Why are people always trying to tell us what we can do with our own bodies? well?? >>I dont think theyve lost their mind. I just think that some doctors >>dont always know what the right course of action should really be in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >environmental components: signs, walking paths, food changes, educational >strategies, and advisory groups. "Always Learning" <noPublicEmail@this.time> wrote in > When did we sign away our individual rights? > > Is this some Democrat law designed to be the big brother? > > Why are people always trying to tell us what we can do with our own > bodies? Wake up man, this is Amerika comrade where the government regulates everything!!!!! > If you want to give/donate an organ to your private family then how is > this anyone's business especially our government? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > well?? It is not the government that is going to tell you that you can't donate a kidney, it is going to be the tranpant doctors. Do you believe that the doctors should not have the right to refues to remove a preson's kidney if they don't belive it is safe? Scott > That's ridiculous.. why on earth would a 6'4 man who was a wrestler have to > be under 200 lbs for a surgery? > > That's too thin for him... What do you know? As a former wrestler, maybe he has a better idea about his own body. The story shows only a headshot. We can only guess about his muscle mass. Know this: without steroids, a dedicated body builder who is genetically talented can shoot for a FFMI (fat free BMI) of about 25. In the pre-steroid era, that's how big the biggest body builders got. It represents a fair estimate of the limit of what can be realistically achieved with clean diet and exercise. For 6'4", a FFMI of 25 corresponds to a lean mass of 204 pounds. The average male has a FFMI of about 18, which corresponds to 148 pounds to a 6'4" height. This Herb guy probably isn't a highly talented, dedicated, competitive body builder. He's an out of shape has-been. Though he probably still has a bit more than average muscle mass too, I would be suprised if there was more than 168 pounds of it. That's a generous 20 more than the average male. At 168 pounds of lean mass, a 200 pound guy has 16% body fat. That's quite chubby, with love handles and all. If he can get to 190 pounds without losing any of the muscle, he's at 11.5%. A lot leaner, but a far cry from ripped. Also note that the article said ``[he] hasn't been under 200 pounds ten years''. This suggests that until ten years ago he /was/ in fact under 200 pounds. So 200 pounds perhaps is a realistic body mass for this fellow. If he's been there before, he can get there again. Don't you people read? Let me clarify the weight lose issue here to everyone as I see from a few posts that it is getting mixed up a bit some how. I am required to weigh below 235 for the surgery to be schedualed to allow my body the proper recovery. I my self am going one step further and going back to my weight when I competed in 2001 and that is 197lbs. where 190 need for surgery came from I dont know. I will be losing 80lbs all together to bring myself back to the healthy person I was 2001. > Let me clarify the weight lose issue here to everyone as I see from a > few posts that it is getting mixed up a bit some how. I am required [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 190 need for surgery came from I dont know. I will be losing 80lbs > all together to bring myself back to the healthy person I was 2001. I think what you are doing is great, and your remaining kidney will thank you for taking off the weight. Good luck, I will be checking your blog from time to time to see how it is going. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.