jess9395

Yup cuz you roll it up and put it in the cups! I used to say I was a 32 "long" it was mostly tube socks rolled up and filling out my bra.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22037012/ https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/panel-suggests-stop-warning-about-cholesterol-in-food-201502127713 https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900007/

I was a 32DDD before my plastics. I didn't think I wanted implants but my surgeon convinced me I did (he was right I'm very happy). But for comparison sake I had 300 cc implants and came out the other end same size I went in 32 DDD so 300 cc equivalent is what l lost in skin! They say 300 cc for a 32 band is about two cup sizes. So... as a reference point I would probably be a 32 D without my implants but I would lack "upper pole fullness" as they say.

Well there are studies though. And many more being funded because people always question. And it's not a large majority that is harmed by saturated fat. It's a significant minority. So less than half. And there are studies that show many people benefit greatly from animal protein, so I will maintain that while there are ethical, health and other reasons to consider a plant based diet there are many reasons to consider animal protein as well. I fully support you promoting that. But I will encourage people to look at both. Because there is clear evidence on both sides and as you say we can't predict who can benefit from which just yet. We have to experiment on our sample size of one--ourselves. This is why I haven't posted on the protein a holic thread, though I read it with interest. It definitely has a place like this one exploring the science behind animal products does. I do believe all the science supports staying away from processed foods as much as possible, whether you chose plant based or animal productsZ

More science for anyone who hasn't tuned out already... Google confirmation bias. We all, from scientists to lay people, academics, students, medical professionals... we all tend towards the information, studies, facts, data, articles that support our own position. I am certainly no different though I try to be objective. My stance is often to look for the facts/data/information that challenges any existing belief whether it's mine or someone else's because that is how we progress in science. If we hold on to existing paradigms and don't challenge them--whether the paradigm is the USDA food pyramid or the idea that dietary cholesterol causes heart attacks--then we will never progress. Good science can be questioned and stand up to questioning.

You clearly haven't read many of my posts. Please don't weigh in on what I post or don't until you've done that. I say many positive things. I did read, all of it. And I will clarify my statement above. For the people for whom saturated fat leads to weight gain and poor heart health the information you post is accurate and should be heeded. There is a significant portion of the population for whom that is true. It just isn't true for everyone. There is a genetic basis that can actually be tested for. I'm sorry you think my the newest science is negative. I think it's exciting to learn more and figure out this puzzle of why certain thing work and don't and even more exciting to discover a scientific basis for why it works for some people and not others. Science is science and not positive or negative.

They've actually shown carb loading isn't effective or necessary most of the time even for long endurance races (marathon or longer). I run. When I'm training I do several 5-8 mile runs in the normal course of a week and don't fuel for them any differently than any normal day. If I'm going over that is when I start worrying about fueling and even then I didn't carb load for my marathons.

Whose list? Not my surgeons.

Except the conclusion made based on those studies are already out dated because they are based on the assumption that saturated fat is bad in all people. That has been disproven. The effect of saturated fat is variable based on individual genetics. They've even discovered the particular gene responsible for the tendency to gain weight more rapidly when you have a diet high in saturated fat.

I didn't enter the fray on the protein a holic thread because I believe that there are definitely ethical arguments for it and it definitely promotes health in some populations. BUT even the links you provide are not science based studies or even correlational or literature review studies. They are arguments based on ethics, reasoning and a few case studies. I have no doubt that animal protein works best for SOME PEOPLE as an occasional basis or condiment. But there is no science that shows it works best that way across populations. There are studies that show that many processed foods are not best practices for anyone (corn syrup, partially hydrogenated or "trans" fats) but nutritional sciences are really developing fields and most of the studies are showing they are genetically based and not one size fits all.

Yes you can DEFINITELY eat heart healthy whole foods, silly to think otherwise. Re--the blue zones. Trouble wth those studies is they are correlation not causation. The populations of those cultures are different in other significant ways too including genetics and societal norms/values/customs (collectivistic vs individualistic) and many other ways. Could be a any one or combination of things in effect, we don't know. Those diets CAN definitely lead to longer healthier lives in some people for sure. But those studies only show that it does that for some populations. More research is needed to determine for whom that way of eating is best practice and from whom another diet is better. It could be like the saturated fat.... there's literally a gene for that.

The really sad part is they won't cover repair of muscles separated by pregnancy even if affects core stability, no matter your weight.

No hard feelings, for sure. But what you said was "This line makes me cringe. I think mistrusting our bodies and not listening to them got us to 300 lbs or more." And I was just clarifying no need to cringe. Your story may be that your weight came from not listening but that's not everyone's story. The problem is I usually hear "don't diet, listen to your body" from newly post ops. And many of us can't do YET. Not newly post op. After we spend some time doing things we know we should and relearning then maybe we can hear the messages that will lead us down a healthy path. And some of us never will be able to. Some of us have screwy messages and need to eat with our heads and be led with the thinking part, our brains.

Your skin went down due to your age, genetics, starting weight, number of times you went up and down the scale, ethnicity, etc. some people do quite well. But exercise doesn't affect the skin, no matter how many weights you lift or how much muscle you build. It may fill it up but won't impact the skin at all. science.

And that's why different things work for different people. And why I say I and ME instead of US and WE. That may be true for YOU. But it was not true for ME. Our genetics, body chemistry, endocrine system, gut bacteria, history with food, upbringing, mental state, etc etc etc are DIFFERENT. So there is no consistent US/WE.

Yes, very much this. It's like the "listen to your body" thing. Yeah listening to my body got me to near 300lbs. I'm not on a "diet" not unless you mean "diet" in the sense that the word just means what we eat. But I learned a whole new way of eating post op. I changed the very fabric my daily intake is made from. Some people may be successful without doing that, but I couldn't have been. I can eat anything I want. But after retraining myself what I want is.... different.

Depends on the food. With a chicken breast I go by weight, yogurt by volume.

Yup! I'm four years out. Have done two full marathons, countless halls and tri's... a bunch of Ragnar relays and a couple of Spartans! You can totally do it! I can gulp plenty of water and fuel appropriately. Not a problem!

Got it. It's an interesting topic/debate for sure! I was recently re reading aloud from Farmer Boy (Laura Ingalls Wilder/Little House on the Prairie) and just taken aback by the descriptions of the food they'd lay on the table for one meal... For reference I found this-- https://www.thehairpin.com/2013/07/every-meal-almanzo-eats-in-laura-ingalls-wilders-farmer-boy/ But here's one breakfast: "oatmeal with plenty of thick cream and maple sugar. There were fried potatoes, and the golden buckwheat cakes, as many as Almanzo wanted to eat, with sausages and gravy or with butter and maple syrup. There were preserves and jams and jellies and doughnuts. But best of all Almanzo liked the spicy apple pie, with its thick, rich juice and its crumbly crust. He ate two big wedges of the pie." All at one meal! But then they go on and he spends the whole day engaged in hard physical labor... feeding animals, building a plow, breaking a colt, training a team of oxen... and then even the play continues and is physical--riding a sled and hauling it up the hill over and over. Dawn to sunset. So... I got to thinking we sometimes try to eat that way without the need he had to fuel so much. Anyhow I found it "food for thought" as it were

Can you elaborate/clarify? I don't understand what you are saying. Thanks

How far out are you? They made me sick for about six months, then I could tolerate them. Keep trying!

Yes!!! Remember that health is your goal! Honestly most of the research is coming out to say your body will stop on its own and you will transition into maintenance. You will gradually increase your calories all along and there will come a point where it's a struggle to lose... like ANY NORMAL PERSON. The last 10-20 will be vanity pounds not health pounds and you may lose them you may not. And healthy eating and moderation that fits with your body/genetics/ethics and lifestyle will make maintenance easy too IF you listen to your new set point. If you want to lose the vanity pounds, good on you, but the health pounds are most important. No external validation needed.

My surgeon feels the same. Our bodies decide on our own new set point. Worked great for me. And didn't force any stress about not losing at the "right" rate or stalls or anything. If you need a number set your own!

For ME-- Even four years out I can't eat a whole egg most days. I don't know the size because we have our own chickens. I couldn't eat eggs without a stomach ache till six months. Now I eat them but they need to be scrambled or sous vide or like a frittata/omelet/quiche. With stuff in it to lubricate. And I try and avoid processed fats but can do saturated fine. My cholesterol ratio (HDL to LDL which is the best predictor of heart health) is killer good. Like less than 3.5 to 1 is ideal and my numbers are flipped and like 1 to 3. But the oatmeal? Can't do it personally. Would trigger carb cravings for me for the rest of the day. If I have a longer race (10k or longer) or long run (10 miles or more) I might have some to fuel but otherwise I can't touch the stuff.

Yeah [mention=317167]introversion[/mention] said it. The science is in. Dietary cholesterol doesn't increase blood cholesterol yet some docs keep to that advise and aren't changing with the times. I also do real bacon! As for fat (and this applies to bacon directly)... the new science is there is literally a gene (and it's one they have located and can test for) that shows some people are more likely to gain weight with saturated fat. Some AREN'T. So unless you want to shell out for the genetic test (23 and me does it) it's trial and error. They are working to discover the same for heart health. As it stands animal fat/saturated fat is the controversial genetics based no one size fits all. It's solid at room temperature. Dairy (butter, cream) and lard are also saturated fats. Plant fats--olive oil, nuts, avocados--are monounsaturated fats. They are liquid at room temperature and those are the healthy "good" fats. Polyunsaturated fats are thicker at room temp--fish, oysters, seed oils. These are good too and fish oil especially because it contains omega-3's. The uncontroversially bad fat is the processed "partially hydrogenated" fat. It's when they take an unsaturated fat and add atoms to make it solid at room temp for the appealing mouth feel. Think margarine and a lot of fried foods. These are the Trans-fats you hear about