DeletedMember

What kind of insurance? When I had a drug screen for Life insurance it was a urine test, not blood test. And blood tests shouldn't go back months anyways. Hair tests, yes.

And on the topic of stalls. I think it's generally accepted that if you just stay the course (assuming you're following doctors/NUTs instructions) the stall will "break". If it was due to AT that should not be the case as AT is a very long lasting effect of low calorie consumption.

I have no explanation for stalls. The body is a complex entity. I wish I did. I believe in the Minnesota Study they were at or under 1500 calories. Hardly "starving" by bariatric standards. It's certainly possible that a lower caloric intake could have an enhanced effect. For obvious ethical reasons there are not many clinical studies of this. That's also the reason the Minnesota Study is still such a significant point of reference even after 60 years. Those "volunteers" were conscientious objectors to the war that participated in lieu of being drafted. Ethically questionable by today's standards.

I also feel compelled to restate my position on this because, based on some of the comments, I think people may have misunderstood what I was saying, and there is probably no need to debate things we agree on: I do not believe that people who are eating 800 calories a day completely stop losing weight because they are in "Starvation Mode". I believe Adaptive Thermogenesis (AT) exists I find it very hard to believe that AT can lower your Energy Expenditure (EE) so low that you are only burning 800 calories a day. I think some people believe I don't think AT is real. I do. I think some people want to debate that AT contributes to the difficulty in losing or regaining weight. I agree that AT plays a potentially big part in that. Even if AT only is a 180 calories a day reduction (or more, say it's 300 calories a day, or even 400), OF COURSE it impacts weight loss and maintenance. You will lose slower with the reduction in EE. It is also a heck of a lot harder to maintain at even 1600 versus 1800, etc. I definitely do not dispute that. My whole point is that I see posts almost everyday that say "you are in a stall because your body has gone into starvation mode". And the people in the stall most often are claiming to eat below 1000 calories, and often working out. I just don't think AT is responsible for that. And for those people that say they break stalls by adding in more calories, or different foods, or increase carbs. I am not even arguing that this has an effect. I think that variety and "shocking" the system to some degree can have an impact on your body. The ONLY thing I'm saying, is that I don't believe, from what I have seen in scientific research, that it is possible to lower your EE to below 800 calories a day through Adaptive Thermogenesis, or "Starvation Mode".

Is something I think we should have a more serious discuss about and it would be nice if all the experts that wrote for the magazine would address the topic of post-op eating disorders. We see more of that being posted about here than anything else but it is glossed over and ignored. Actually, the article I posted was from 1992 I believe, the Minnesota Study was 60+ years ago yes. The only reason I reference that study is that even today it is the single most referenced and quoted study, as well as where most people derive their information for "Starvation Mode". When you get the time, I really would appreciate it if you post any links you have to studies that refute the relatively low impact of AT. I would definitely be interested in reading them. From my research and reading, I haven't found that to be the case, but I always keep an open mind. Studies with alternative findings are much appreciated.

I also had a fatty liver. As mentioned, most obese people do. When my surgeon saw that in my report and I believe his comment was something along the lines of "Everything looks great. I see you a fatty liver, no surprise there. Surgery should take care of that for you!" That was it.

@JamieLogical I hear you!!! I do the same. Pretty much unless I'm at a restaurant, I weigh and measure everything! I'm sure there are a lot of people who do, but I think overall it is a minority is all. And I will also admit that even though I do that, I know I still miss some things - for instance, for some reason I'm bad at logging my coffee. Now, mind you, a 20oz black coffee is only a few calories (hence why I tend to be lazy about logging it). I'm pretty sure my logging is fairly accurate, at least in aggregate. For instance, when I cook my lunches (which I do in batch), I weigh and measure all ingredients. Then I measure it into exact portions, and divide the recipe by the total number of portions. It is a huge pain and takes forever, and it's the part I hate the most about cooking. BUT, I still know there is variation in each portion. Not every portion got the exact same balance of every ingredient. Ok, so I'm a little anal and excessive, but we are in the minority. There really are a lot of studies out there backing this up. Here is one: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701#t=abstract If you don't care to read, here is the conclusion: "The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis."

I've only had one health care "professional" be a jerk - my PCP's nurse, and she is always kind of a jerk. She thought it appropriate when she saw me AFTER the surgery to tell me how every person she has every known who had this surgery gained all their weight back. Thanks. More frustrating to me, personally, was all the doctors that continually told me I needed to lose weight. Literally any doctor I ever went to would have a conversation with me about my weight, but they never really proposed anything that would help. They would just tell me I "really needed to do something about it". Yeah, no kidding. I was one of my orthopedic doctors than finally recommended bariatric surgery, and did it in a very honest, but direct way. He sympathized with me saying he understood that it was incredibly difficult, and that most people really are not able to it on their own in the long run. He even mentioned that telling me I need to lose weight was of really no value as I was obviously an intelligent man and knew this. He went on to inform me that if I continued as I was, I would become disabled. And not many years down the road, but soon. He said I would most likely be in a wheelchair in less than 10 years, and that I would struggle with the surgeries I needed and the recovery. Then he suggested I consider bariatric surgery - again noting it was a big decision, but that perhaps I start by going and talking with a surgeon to learn more. Now THAT is a helpful approach - at least for me. Showing care and compassion goes a long way in having your message heard. Being educated on obesity helps as well.

It looks like you crushed it prior to surgery! From 370 to 248 is no small feat, congrats! Even post op, you will never lose weight as fast at 248 as you did at 370. I also lost the fastest in my first month (pre-surgery). Your body is burning a lot fewer calories now than it did 120+ lbs heavier. That being said, 18 lbs in 5 weeks is still really, really good! I don't know what your goal weight is, but at that pace you will lose 50 lbs in a little over 3 months. I'm not saying you will lose at the same pace for 3 months, but if you did you would be down to 180 by year's end.

@@OKCPirate Well stated - that's what I was trying to convey when I said I don't completely buy in to calorie in / calorie out. You have summed it up much better than I could have.

@@Christinamo7 - apparently, AT continues long past the initial weight loss period. I know your calorie out goes back up if you put on weight. So your metabolism being "ruined forever" maybe a bit dramatic, but I do think it could be "a bit lower than normal forever".

@KristenLe starving in this context is simple defined as very low calorie intake. So, by this definition, we are starving. It is not about malnourishment in the sense of unhealthy food, just low calorie intake. The people in the Minnesota study were put on a very low calorie diet, but they were still given quality food in a controlled environment.

Well, I'm no doctor, but I am an obsessive reader, and most medical/scholarly articles say the exact same thing. As for the anecdotal evidence you see in the forums, there are also a lot of studies that show people massively under report their caloric intake (I'm sure this will piss some people off). I don't have the links handy, but from what I've read it is pretty consistent to see people under reporting by 25% - 50%. From my recollection, people who under report the most are obese people, females, and people under medical supervision. I'm not discounting that there are people with medical issue that cause them to gain weight more easily. I also believe it's quite possible there are large variations in the caloric expenditure between people. However, all the science I have read shows that starvation mode will slow down your metabolism, but not massively. However, if you are at a body size that "should" be burning 1600 calories a day, and you have experienced AT, you may only be burning around 1400 calories a day. If you are under reporting you calories by 25% - 50%, you can quickly see how someone might report they have to eat 1000 to maintain. I also, personally do not subscribe to a pure "calorie in calorie out" approach. I think the body is an extremely complicated organism that is not as black and white as that. I think what you eat is as important as how many calories. I tend to argue that last point (calorie in/out) less as there is so little actual science behind so much of that, and theories abound. I just take the approach of "well, even if I'm wrong, eating lean Proteins, fruit and veggies and avoiding processed foods can't really be BAD for me." I should also note, if you stick to lean Protein, fruits and veggies, it's actually pretty hard to consume a ton of calories.

My Iron is fine, and I'm constantly freezing! It's better than sweating like a pig all the time, but it is still very, very annoying! Mine also started before surgery, right at the beginning of my pre-op diet. This is why I think it may have more to do with low food/calorie intake than actual loss of fat. If people say it can go away over time, that could reinforce that theory, as people tend to up caloric intake over time. But it's just a theory. I've been to lazy to do any actual research on the topic to date.

@@fatgirlsvelte Best of luck to you! I completely understand where you are at. In fact, I was just talking to my wife the other day and telling her that the most common thing I hear on BP is "i just wish I had done it sooner", and I for one, do not. I am 42, and the timing was perfect for me. I've been obese my whole life, and I have absolutely no regrets about surgery, but it's hard, and it's forever. That would have been a really hard thing for me to get my head around in my 20s, or even early 30s. I think I would have constantly had doubts if I had REALLY tried hard enough to lose it on my own, if I had REALLY given it my best shot. At 42, I know I have. I have tried every kind of diet, every kind of lifestyle change, and probably mot importantly, I just don't have it in me to keep trying. And if I quit trying, there would be no end to my weight gain. This is most certainly not an indictment of people who have surgery in their 20s and 30s, or any other age. Nor is it a judgement of people who regret not doing it sooner, it's just my life and my experience. And I'm sharing it just to say "I get it". I understand where you're at. You are young, you have time, you can always reconsider, or maybe (hopefully!) you will never need to. Good luck to you!

I started with a BMI of just over 50 on Feb 2nd. I had surgery on March 21st. I currently have a BMI of 26.8. I have a little more I want to lose, but I feel amazing.

LOL. I lost 102 lbs in the first 4 months. But just for the record, I did it being 99.99% compliant with my doctors instructions (ok, so I did have a couple of potatoes chips once or twice). I wouldn't consider it a "prisoner of war" diet. But your comment did make me laugh.I have lost almost 100 pounds during my six-month pre-op diet. I haven't even had the surgery yet. It is Wednesday. I have certainly not been on any "prisoner of war" diet, but I have been incredibly focused on my journey, re-establishing my relationship with food, and improving my health. I, too, read of these insane posts where people can't even work to improve their situation for a few hours, let alone long term. But it is what it is, so I never comment. This surgery next week is a tool that will help me continue my journey, but it isn't the whole journey. I am DAMN proud of what I have accomplished, and I just because the loss has been swift doesn't mean that it is unhealthy. You are a man, you lost 100 lbs it in 6 months, that is only 16 pounds a month, or barely over 4% a month (which is a normal amount to lose, people lose that on dietbet) , you started at almost 400 lbs, super morbidly obese. That isn't the same as a middle aged 5'2 female going from 250 to 150 in 4 or 5 months post-op after not eating anything at all but Water and crystal light for weeks. So my comments stand, they don't apply to you, and you didn't even bother applying any kind of critical thinking to what I said before jumping in to defend yourself when it didn't even apply to you. If you really even comprehended what I said in the first place you would have never commented. Atleast @ could use that Big 10 Education (Go Illini) to know it isn't about him. Congrats on your weight loss so far. Damn straight! I'm a man and a Spartan. Spartans Will! Go Green! Haha.

LOL. I lost 102 lbs in the first 4 months. But just for the record, I did it being 99.99% compliant with my doctors instructions (ok, so I did have a couple of potatoes chips once or twice). I wouldn't consider it a "prisoner of war" diet. But your comment did make me laugh.

2/9/16 High Weight - 333 3/21/16 Surgery Weight - 287 Today (6 months and 2 days post-op) - 176 Total Weight Lost since high weight (2/9/16): 157lbs Total Weight Lost in the 6 months since surgery (3/21/16): 111lbs And if you really want a month by month breakdown, here you go: Month 1: 36.7 Month 2: 25.2 (this was the month in which I had my RNY) Month 3: 23.0 Month 4: 17.9 Month 5: 21.6 Month 6: 12.1 Month 7: 14.1 Month 8: Currently underway...(6.1lbs so far)

I echo the comment to find a therapist ASAP as it sounds like you're in a pretty bad placed mentally/emotionally. But it will get better, it really will. First, it's massively more difficult to deal with these issues while you are struggling to just get in fluids and Protein, let alone work through the various stages and figure out what food will sit well versus what won't (and even that is a moving target!). You will eventually get to a point (3 months? 6 months? 1 year? Depends on the individual) where you can largely eat "normally". Not to say you can or should eat anything you want (that's how we got here), but you can eat a large variety of foods, and although you will eat small portions, you will begin to feel more "normal" when eating in front of others, etc. Very little, if anything, is off limits forever. You may chose to never eat ice cream again, or bread, or Pasta. Or you may chose to have these things in limited quantities, it's really up to you. If you go back to eating the same way you did before surgery, you will end up at the same weight you were before surgery. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. This is how I approach food. What I CAN eat, is actually very good, so I focus on that as opposed to what I CAN'T eat. For instance, I made this spanish chicken stew this week that is absolutely FANTASTIC. Honestly, it's as good a lunch as I've had at work in years. I also made up a batch of chicken/quinoa enchilada casserole that is also fantastic. My cajun chicken with "rice" (I substituted riced cauliflower) was just "ok", but live and learn. I have also truly learned to love fruit. When you reduce the amount of refined sugar you take in to near zero, things like fresh fruit become amazing. I also make my own Protein shake every morning with a half banana, peanut powder and chocolate almond milk, and it's crazy good. I guess my point is that if you focus on everything you "can't" have (and lets be honest, pizza and ice cream are REALLY delicious) then you will inevitably be sad and jealous. If instead, you focus on all the really amazing and healthy foods that you can have, you may soon come to realize that the other food isn't necessary or even important. You are still enjoying food, and that food is incredibly good for you and your body. Not to mention you're dropping the weight, and looking and feeling better. All things considered, it seems a very, very small price to pay. I'm 6 months out, and still have not had any "forbidden" foods, but mostly because I really don't want to. Will that always be the case? I don't know, but I'm enjoying the ride for now.

I drink carbonated beverages everyday with my doctors approval. Mind you - I don't drink soda - regular or diet, both of which my doctor frowns upon. But I drink sparkling Water daily. I have been since about 1-2 months post op. 6 months post-op now.

I have BCBS of Michigan and also had a BMI over 50. I needed no pre authorization at all. I think I got one bill for $20 for anesthesia. Super easy. My surgeon was well aware of the BCBS requirements. You just have to fulfill certain obligations like clearance from your PCP, a psych visit, etc. Then you are automatically approved.

@@Airstream88 I also took liquid hydrocodone (norco/vicodin) after. I believe the name of the liquid form is Hycet. I recently had a severe reaction to a cortisone shot that caused me some major pain for about 24-48 hours, and was prescribed norco for that as well (pill form this time as I'm almost 6 months out and can take pills fine). Obviously, narcotics are never a great long term solution, but they are well tolerated by bariatric patients for short term pain control (barring any other health issues of course).

@@Airstream88 For my knees, I really no longer take any pain medication. They are completely shot and need to be replaced, but the pain is tolerable with the weight loss. Honestly, I have less pain now, without NSAIDS, than I did before while using them. Eventually, I will bite the bullet and have them replaced, but for now the pain is manageable, so it's in my best interest to delay. My hip is a completely different story. The weight loss has not helped in any way, and the pain is agonizing. It is managed through regular cortisone injections which keep me sane. As those start to wear off, I use Tylenol to control the pain (mostly at night so I can sleep). It is only marginally effective. I am working on scheduling a hip replacement (actually a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) for this coming January. Can't wait! And I am very optimistic that the surgery and recovery will be MUCH easier with 155 less pounds on my body!

I love my Fitbit HR Charge. It helps keep me accountable. I work a very sedintary job, so if I am not making an effort, I might only see 3,000-4,000 steps in a day. If I get lazy and see that for more than about 2 days in a row, it sort of forces me to at least get out and walk a couple of miles. It also encourages me to just get up and move around the office from time-to-time, or go for a walk during my lunch break or whatever. Someone brought up some of the short-falls of the device, which I agree with, but will give you my opinion: Accuracy - they are not terribly accurate. I find mine (when compared to GPS) runs about 10% over actual. This is true, but to me irrelevant. If it bothers you, and you want to make sure you're getting 10,000 steps a day, just set your target for 11,000 or 12,000. For me, the point is to get regular activity. If I'm hitting 10,000 a day, but it's really only 9,100 - I can totally live with that. Beats the crap out of <5,000 a day! Same with heart rate. At random times throughout the day it may say my heart rate is 100+, which I know is not possible. However, I find that when I am running on a treadmill and compare it to the HR monitor there, it is usually within a couple BPM. Same if I sit and relax for a few minutes, then take my BP. My BP gauge generally matches the fitbit to within a point or two. Take away - it may not always be perfect, but in the aggregate I've found it to be pretty accurate. Charging - honestly, this has probably been my biggest struggle. Unlike other devices, I don't want to take it off at night, as I like to monitor my sleep patterns as well (although I do have some serious accuracy questions with this function). So it becomes hard to charge a device that you would prefer to wear 100% of the time. My solution? I take it off every morning when I get up and plug it in. By the time I am done getting ready in the morning it is almost 100% charged, so it never gets low. If I go out of town for the weekend I can make it almost 4 days without needing a recharge. It does recharge VERY quickly, even when run completely out of battery (1-2 hours at most). It's not a perfect solution, but it's great for me. I would like it to be waterproof as I spend a lot of time in the summer out on the Water. I know you can buy 3rd party waterproofed ones, and I probably would go that route if I were to do it over again.