>> >Why not cut
>> >out the expense and pain and change your eating habits and exercise to lose
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>for by insurance for people who want to lose ~70lbs or so, which
>really isn't that different from 20lbs in the scheme of things.
Actually, everything I've read quotes 100lbs or more overweight as the
requirement to qualify for the surgery. That may have changed
recently.
Of course these people could lose it conventionally. I think the
immediate health risks of the person should be a consideration.
However, I'd much rather my tax dollars and insurance payments went to
the surgery than to treating their diabetes and kidney dialysis when
they don't lose it later in life.
I think it's also naieve to say 50 lbs is not much difference in the
grand scheme. it totally depends on your state of health.
>> But people who are facing real health risks could be in for a lot more
>> pain and expense if they don't take these drastic measures. Many may
>> not have the time left to lose the weight required.
>
>Other than the ~3ft of bypassed small intestine, WLS isn't going to
>fix anything that simple commitment won't either.
Simple commitment seems to be an impossible task for many obese people
(consider the existence of fat acceptance)
But lacking the willpower and dedicaiton required to successfully diet
(I agree everyone should have it) It does indeed physically prevent
you from overeating, which is a fix for those without the willpower.
>> >I'm still considering the surgery, but the more research I do and the people
>> >I talk to, I think I'm better off doing this on my own through my WOL/WOE
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>complications. Even after a full recovery, he now has to eat like a
>squirrel. What a poor decision he made.
What WOULD he have died from ultimately otherwise, though? As the
article I originally posted states, statistically the surgery risk
appears to be less at this point than obesity related ailments.
Many many people have actually chosen death due to obesity over
finding the will to change their lives. I can't be judgmental enough
to say they deserve to die because of their own bad choices. Maybe
they do, but this at least is another choice for them.
> I can understand why he did
>it, since before starting my weight loss regimen I though dieting was
>horrible and ultimately fruitless, but 4+ months in losing 1-2lbs/week
>is painless and not that big a deal at all.
Again, I agree. I am totally behind the dieting idea before the
surgery. And I can't defend or even understand people like fat
acceptors who claim they can't physically lose weight and that dieting
is evil.
>> > There's a woman in my church that has had the surgery, but said
>> >that there often are days where she'd wished she never had the surgery.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>yeay. Sign me up to be guinea pig #4,403.
I'd take it over having to go to a dialysis clinic twice a month or
having my feet removed.
>> >Even at the surgery seminar I went to all the doctors & nutritionists kept
>> >reiterating that the surgery is a tool not a miracle cure.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>this surgery if they have issues like sleep apnea or knee cartilage
>damage.
Well, sleep apnea can kill you and knee cartilage damage is often
permanently debilitating, especially if you have to have orthoscopic
surgery. I'd call that real danger.
>Most people at 300 can *easily* be down to 200 in about a year, WLS or
>no.
>
>1000kcal/day deficit is all it takes, and I've found a 1000 kcal daily
>deficit to be really easy to maintain, though I don't have kids, a
>family, demanding work, etc.
You'd probably lose weight faster if you did. Congratulations, by the
way, on your success. Keep it up!
Jade
>Heywood
>
>232/196/182
Heywood Mogroot - 23 Jun 2004 07:06 GMT
> >> >Why not cut
> >> >out the expense and pain and change your eating habits and exercise to lose
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> requirement to qualify for the surgery. That may have changed
> recently.
A BMI of 35 gets you qualified if you can convince your insurance
company that you have eg. sleep apnia and/or other obesity-related
health issues.
> Of course these people could lose it conventionally. I think the
> immediate health risks of the person should be a consideration.
WLS doesn't address these "immediate health risks", other than the
~3ft of bypassed small intestine.
> However, I'd much rather my tax dollars and insurance payments went to
> the surgery than to treating their diabetes and kidney dialysis when
> they don't lose it later in life.
At the risk of being insensitive, I'd rather have insurance payments
go to surgically attaching a zipper to people's mouths. Less invasive,
and probably more cost effective.
> I think it's also naieve to say 50 lbs is not much difference in the
> grand scheme. it totally depends on your state of health.
It's 15-30 weeks of nice, easy dieting. Sorry, I don't see the
significant risk of those 50lbs as they are coming off, especially
since those same pounds will come off at a similar rate after WLS.
> >> But people who are facing real health risks could be in for a lot more
> >> pain and expense if they don't take these drastic measures. Many may
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Simple commitment seems to be an impossible task for many obese people
> (consider the existence of fat acceptance)
Then maybe we should throw our public monies at that problem. One idea
I had was an adult fat farm, like say on the Big Island or other
resort area. 2-3 months of lifestyle change. Not sure it would work,
but slicing up one's stomach is just w-r-o-n-g for anyone not
seriously, seriously obese.
I haven't been that fat so I admit the great possibility that straight
dieting gets harder the heavier you are.
> >> >I'm still considering the surgery, but the more research I do and the people
> >> >I talk to, I think I'm better off doing this on my own through my WOL/WOE
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> article I originally posted states, statistically the surgery risk
> appears to be less at this point than obesity related ailments.
He was ~275. He'd given up, and took the easy out. I understand his
decision, since dieting can really really suck if you don't know what
you're doing (in fact, dieting the wrong way can do just as much
damage if not more than over-eating in the first place).
Liquid diets, SlimFast, and other crash programs are not the answer to
obesity -- running a ~1000kcal/day calorie deficit is IMV. This will
work down most obesity problems given a year or two of commitment, at
the same rate as WLS patients. Without the pain and suffering, or
altered lifestyle.
> Many many people have actually chosen death due to obesity over
> finding the will to change their lives. I can't be judgmental enough
> to say they deserve to die because of their own bad choices. Maybe
> they do, but this at least is another choice for them.
I don't judge people without being in their shoes, but all I'm saying
is that, other than the bypassed small intestine, WLS doesn't provide
any benefits that simple diet changes won't also.
> > I can understand why he did
> >it, since before starting my weight loss regimen I though dieting was
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> acceptors who claim they can't physically lose weight and that dieting
> is evil.
Dieting sucks if you do it wrong (eg. go no-fat, twigs and rabbit
food, 400 kcal/day crash diets, obsess over every calorie, etc).
> >> > There's a woman in my church that has had the surgery, but said
> >> >that there often are days where she'd wished she never had the surgery.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I'd take it over having to go to a dialysis clinic twice a month or
> having my feet removed.
Other than the ~3ft of bypassed small intestine, WLS doesn't offer any
benefits that eating less won't give you. People can and do abuse
their stomachs after WLS too.
> >> >Even at the surgery seminar I went to all the doctors & nutritionists kept
> >> >reiterating that the surgery is a tool not a miracle cure.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> permanently debilitating, especially if you have to have orthoscopic
> surgery. I'd call that real danger.
So? WLS isn't a magic wand that takes the weight off instantly. A 1000
kcal/day deficit diet will take off weight for most people just as
effectively, with a lot less pain, hassle, and expense.
> >Most people at 300 can *easily* be down to 200 in about a year, WLS or
> >no.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You'd probably lose weight faster if you did. Congratulations, by the
> way, on your success. Keep it up!
Trying to... got a bit cocky today about being safely under 200 for
the first time in about 6 years and ate too much... Going to need to
really get back to my pre-vacation habits...