Search the Community

So I've finally caught up, took me 3 days to do it but here I am. No questions about it, I'm an addict. Not just to sugar and carbs but to food. FOOD still tastes good to me on a daily basis. I haven't given my sleeve anything that it didn't tolerate just fine. As I have gotten further out it has become harder to stay on track because now I don't have this list of like 4 foods that it is okay for me to eat. I actually have to choose to eat what I should, and for the most part, I do. I have days that I fall off the wagon, but each day is a new day. I get up, brush myself off and start again. I am from Louiaiana. Not just from the south but from one of the most obese states in our country. You know there are "starving kids in China" so we don't throw food away, or at least that's what we were told growing up. My grandmother was a feeder. Everyday after school (after finishing off a big grab bag of flaming hot cheetos and a large icee) she would have cookies or cake or fried chicken fixed and just hanging around. We got to eat what ever, when ever we wanted. This was all before the age of 13. It didn't stop. When I was in my early teens my parents did a dieting program through our church and lost weight. I didn't lose weight. I ate what they ate but I ate as much as I wanted. When I was a junior or senior in high school, I went through the program with them and lost 30 pounds. When I started college my freshman 15 turned into my sophomore 60 and stuck around for my senior 70. I seriously gained around 80 pounds in my 4 years of college. I lost some while working on my second degree but then got pregnant just before I graduated. When I went in to have my son I was 286 pounds (I had gained somewhere between 50-80 pounds during my pregnancy). I lost about 20 after I had him but within 4 months put it back on. Fast forward 5 years and I can't get pregnant. We think it's because of my weight gain (I'm now about 320) so I decide to go for a sleeve. A month before my sleeve was scheduled to be done, I find out I'm pregnant. And you know what, I was SAD!!! I wanted this surgery. I wanted to be healthy for my pregnancy but here I was super morbidly obese and pregnant. Gross. I only gained 23 pounds during my second pregnancy and the baby weighed almost 10 pounds so not too bad. That weight came off pretty quick and then I was sleeved when the baby was 4 weeks old. It was the best decision I have ever made. I have learned a lot already. I know that I have limited will power. My will power stops when I take a bite of anything. I can resist any food all day long until I take one bite and then it is all over. I can't stop myself. Carbs are a nightmare. If I start the day off with them, I'm hungry all day and wanting to eat. Same goes for sugar. But it isn't just those. Like Cheri, it fried goodness, burgers, savory, spicy, chips and salsa, FOOD! I have eaten out of bordom, I ate when I was happy and when I was sad. Something good happened, "Oh, lets celebrate! Where do you want to go eat?" Something bad happened, "Oh, bless your heart. What can I get you to eat?" It was never ending. I haven't been a big food sneaker but there were times that I did. I could, and probably still can but have not tried, to polish off a pint of ice cream in a single sitting. I never ate a whole pizza but I sure could eat half a large by myself. I was the one who finished my husbands food, and the kid's. I was the same as someone before who would go to McD's and get a large value meal and get chicken nuggets to go with it. I was out of control. Now I am not a slave to food. I don't think about it all the time. I enjoy it but it does not rule my life. I have an amazing support system and my hubby is happy to finish my left overs So much has changed about me in the last 8 months, on the inside and the outside. I am liking this new person I am becoming. I used to tell people that people liked me for the same reasons they like Santa Claus, cause I was fat and jolly! I'm still jolly. My joy is dependent on far more than the weight I carry or my circumstances but people are going to have to find a new reason to like me!

It has been a good month of fitness. Each day has seen between 2-3 miles of running, mostly either sprinting for short distances (400 m intervals) or fast for longer durations (6 min average for 1 mile). Running a mile feels really comfortable now at race speed. My lifting has seen a slow progression of PR every week. This Friday marks the end of our 1 month nutritional challenge at the crossfit box. We will also be doing a special chipper WOD that identical to the one from last month to see where we have improved. Most are taking on weight loss as a goal for the end of this challenge. I wasn't intending to and actually saw my weight climb by 5 lbs in last few weeks to hold stead at 182. Every day. I attributed the weight gain to lack of proper recovery / sleep / muscle gain, but not really sure of actual cause. Today, I got on the scale this morning and it said 176. I checked and rechecked 8 times. Same weight. Interesting drop. Batteries are Ok. Not sure if it was because I slept more (actually got 8 hours instead of usual 6) or because of a chipper workout I did yesterday: 6 Sets Of: ​Hang Clean + Power Clean + Jerk then 14 Minute AMRAP: 10 Ring Dips 200m Sprint 10 Pullups 200m Sprint I got 6 rounds and, man, was that tough. My dinners have also been a little more on the "rich side" these last few months, but last night I had straight Turky (4 ounces). Maybe that did it? Who knows...

Hi again, Does anyone take risperidal or any other pysch meds that might cause weight gain. Ive been doing some reading and the psychotropics may cause weight gain. What is the general consensus on meds and weight gain.

I grew up in a household where my parents were both overweight and was encouraged to eat everything on my plate. Otherwise, I couldn't leave the dinner table. The meals growing up were large and fattening, I grew up in a southern household. I have thrown away some food but a lot of times, I eat part now and the rest later for my other small meal. I haven't eaten large meals in the last few years, I just ate a lot of rich meals during my extensive business and personal travel. That coupled wit the fact that I was working 12-14 hour days (financial services pays well, but controls your life), caused my weight gain. I was leaving my home at 6:00 am and getting back home at 9:00 pm. I've learned how to be very selective when eating out in the months leading up to being sleeved.

I spoke with my doctor this morning. She said my thyroid is fine and that she's checked that evertime I've done blood which was done late September and we do it almost every other month. Doc says the weight gain is most likely from the limited mobility due to my fibromyalgia. I've definitely slowed down a lot...Ive never been an over eater, I just wasn't eating the proper foods and that coupled with lack of exercise and late night dinners has made me this way. My hate for food may be why I chose to eat less, I always knew it wasn't good food goin in so I never ate a lot.. For all those that say I'm not being honest with myself, understand this, I am not here to give a false image, I'm looking for advice and encouragement. Whatever u did to gain weight is what u did, I know how I got here...lets stop insinuating I am a liar. Thanks for all the advice. I now know its not my thyroid. My doc says that since I've started my meds for the fibromyalgia, it will allow me over time to be able to work out and that mixed with the surery and my new eating habits will help me get my life back..I jus hope she's right. Also it will prevent my family history diseases, and assist with infertility issues..weight loss is the cure for way too many things..lol.

It's 14 pages but they are filled with goodness. Makes a very interesting read and shows us the role of policy and politics in decision making. meat and dairy products -- was the primary nutritional evil in the American diet. Atkins managed to sell millions of copies of a book promising that we would lose weight eating steak, eggs and butter to our heart's desire, because it was the carbohydrates, the Pasta, rice, bagels and sugar, that caused obesity and even heart disease. Fat, he said, was harmless. Atkins allowed his readers to eat ''truly luxurious foods without limit,'' as he put it, ''lobster with butter sauce, steak with béarnaise sauce . . . bacon cheeseburgers,'' but allowed no starches or refined carbohydrates, which means no sugars or anything made from flour. Atkins banned even fruit juices, and permitted only a modicum of vegetables, although the latter were negotiable as the diet progressed. Atkins was by no means the first to get rich pushing a high-fat diet that restricted carbohydrates, but he popularized it to an extent that the American Medical Association considered it a potential threat to our health. The A.M.A. attacked Atkins's diet as a ''bizarre regimen'' that advocated ''an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,'' and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings. Thirty years later, America has become weirdly polarized on the subject of weight. On the one hand, we've been told with almost religious certainty by everyone from the surgeon general on down, and we have come to believe with almost religious certainty, that obesity is caused by the excessive consumption of fat, and that if we eat less fat we will lose weight and live longer. On the other, we have the ever-resilient message of Atkins and decades' worth of best-selling diet books, including ''The Zone,'' ''Sugar Busters'' and ''Protein Power'' to name a few. All push some variation of what scientists would call the alternative hypothesis: it's not the fat that makes us fat, but the carbohydrates, and if we eat less carbohydrates we will lose weight and live longer. The perversity of this alternative hypothesis is that it identifies the cause of obesity as precisely those refined carbohydrates at the base of the famous food Guide Pyramid -- the pasta, rice and bread -- that we are told should be the staple of our healthy low-fat diet, and then on the sugar or corn syrup in the soft drinks, fruit juices and sports drinks that we have taken to consuming in quantity if for no other reason than that they are fat free and so appear intrinsically healthy. While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy. Over the past five years, however, there has been a subtle shift in the scientific consensus. It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association. Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, may be the most visible proponent of testing this heretic hypothesis. Willett is the de facto spokesman of the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health studies ever performed, which have already cost upward of $100 million and include data on nearly 300,000 individuals. Those data, says Willett, clearly contradict the low-fat-is-good-health message ''and the idea that all fat is bad for you; the exclusive focus on adverse effects of fat may have contributed to the obesity epidemic.'' These researchers point out that there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time. In particular, that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic that started around the early 1980's, and that this was coincident with the rise of the low-fat dogma. (Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of the disease, also rose significantly through this period.) They say that low-fat weight-loss diets have proved in clinical trials and real life to be dismal failures, and that on top of it all, the percentage of fat in the American diet has been decreasing for two decades. Our cholesterol levels have been declining, and we have been smoking less, and yet the incidence of heart disease has not declined as would be expected. ''That is very disconcerting,'' Willett says. ''It suggests that something else bad is happening.'' The science behind the alternative hypothesis can be called Endocrinology 101, which is how it's referred to by David Ludwig, a researcher at Harvard Medical School who runs the pediatric obesity clinic at Children's Hospital Boston, and who prescribes his own version of a carbohydrate-restricted diet to his patients. Endocrinology 101 requires an understanding of how carbohydrates affect insulin and blood sugar and in turn fat metabolism and appetite. This is basic endocrinology, Ludwig says, which is the study of hormones, and it is still considered radical because the low-fat dietary wisdom emerged in the 1960's from researchers almost exclusively concerned with the effect of fat on cholesterol and heart disease. At the time, Endocrinology 101 was still underdeveloped, and so it was ignored. Now that this science is becoming clear, it has to fight a quarter century of anti-fat prejudice. The alternative hypothesis also comes with an implication that is worth considering for a moment, because it's a whopper, and it may indeed be an obstacle to its acceptance. If the alternative hypothesis is right -- still a big ''if'' -- then it strongly suggests that the ongoing epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is not, as we are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack of will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred, as Atkins has been saying (along with Barry Sears, author of ''The Zone''), because the public health authorities told us unwittingly, but with the best of intentions, to eat precisely those foods that would make us fat, and we did. We ate more fat-free carbohydrates, which, in turn, made us hungrier and then heavier. Put simply, if the alternative hypothesis is right, then a low-fat diet is not by definition a healthy diet. In practice, such a diet cannot help being high in carbohydrates, and that can lead to obesity, and perhaps even heart disease. ''For a large percentage of the population, perhaps 30 to 40 percent, low-fat diets are counterproductive,'' says Eleftheria Maratos-Flier, director of obesity research at Harvard's prestigious Joslin Diabetes Center. ''They have the paradoxical effect of making people gain weight.'' Scientists are still arguing about fat, despite a century of research, because the regulation of appetite and weight in the human body happens to be almost inconceivably complex, and the experimental tools we have to study it are still remarkably inadequate. This combination leaves researchers in an awkward position. To study the entire physiological system involves feeding real food to real human subjects for months or years on end, which is prohibitively expensive, ethically questionable (if you're trying to measure the effects of foods that might cause heart disease) and virtually impossible to do in any kind of rigorously controlled scientific manner. But if researchers seek to study something less costly and more controllable, they end up studying experimental situations so oversimplified that their results may have nothing to do with reality. This then leads to a research literature so vast that it's possible to find at least some published research to support virtually any theory. The result is a balkanized community -- ''splintered, very opinionated and in many instances, intransigent,'' says Kurt Isselbacher, a former chairman of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Science -- in which researchers seem easily convinced that their preconceived notions are correct and thoroughly uninterested in testing any other hypotheses but their own. What's more, the number of misconceptions propagated about the most basic research can be staggering. Researchers will be suitably scientific describing the limitations of their own experiments, and then will cite something as gospel truth because they read it in a magazine. The classic example is the statement heard repeatedly that 95 percent of all dieters never lose weight, and 95 percent of those who do will not keep it off. This will be correctly attributed to the University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist Albert Stunkard, but it will go unmentioned that this statement is based on 100 patients who passed through Stunkard's obesity clinic during the Eisenhower administration. With these caveats, one of the few reasonably reliable facts about the obesity epidemic is that it started around the early 1980's. According to Katherine Flegal, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of obese Americans stayed relatively constant through the 1960's and 1970's at 13 percent to 14 percent and then shot up by 8 percentage points in the 1980's. By the end of that decade, nearly one in four Americans was obese. That steep rise, which is consistent through all segments of American society and which continued unabated through the 1990's, is the singular feature of the epidemic. Any theory that tries to explain obesity in America has to account for that. Meanwhile, overweight children nearly tripled in number. And for the first time, physicians began diagnosing Type 2 diabetes in adolescents. Type 2 diabetes often accompanies obesity. It used to be called adult-onset diabetes and now, for the obvious reason, is not. So how did this happen? The orthodox and ubiquitous explanation is that we live in what Kelly Brownell, a Yale psychologist, has called a ''toxic food environment'' of cheap fatty food, large portions, pervasive food advertising and sedentary lives. By this theory, we are at the Pavlovian mercy of the food industry, which spends nearly $10 billion a year advertising unwholesome junk food and fast food. And because these foods, especially fast food, are so filled with fat, they are both irresistible and uniquely fattening. On top of this, so the theory goes, our modern society has successfully eliminated physical activity from our daily lives. We no longer exercise or walk up stairs, nor do our children bike to school or play outside, because they would prefer to play video games and watch television. And because some of us are obviously predisposed to gain weight while others are not, this explanation also has a genetic component -- the thrifty gene. It suggests that storing extra calories as fat was an evolutionary advantage to our Paleolithic ancestors, who had to survive frequent famine. We then inherited these ''thrifty'' genes, despite their liability in today's toxic environment. This theory makes perfect sense and plays to our puritanical prejudice that fat, fast food and television are innately damaging to our humanity. But there are two catches. First, to buy this logic is to accept that the copious negative reinforcement that accompanies obesity -- both socially and physically -- is easily overcome by the constant bombardment of food advertising and the lure of a supersize bargain meal. And second, as Flegal points out, little data exist to support any of this. Certainly none of it explains what changed so significantly to start the epidemic. Fast-food consumption, for example, continued to grow steadily through the 70's and 80's, but it did not take a sudden leap, as obesity did. As far as exercise and physical activity go, there are no reliable data before the mid-80's, according to William Dietz, who runs the division of nutrition and physical activity at the Centers for Disease Control; the 1990's data show obesity rates continuing to climb, while exercise activity remained unchanged. This suggests the two have little in common. Dietz also acknowledged that a culture of physical exercise began in the United States in the 70's -- the ''leisure exercise mania,'' as Robert Levy, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, described it in 1981 -- and has continued through the present day. As for the thrifty gene, it provides the kind of evolutionary rationale for human behavior that scientists find comforting but that simply cannot be tested. In other words, if we were living through an anorexia epidemic, the experts would be discussing the equally untestable ''spendthrift gene'' theory, touting evolutionary advantages of losing weight effortlessly. An overweight homo erectus, they'd say, would have been easy prey for predators. It is also undeniable, note students of Endocrinology 101, that mankind never evolved to eat a diet high in starches or sugars. ''Grain products and concentrated sugars were essentially absent from human nutrition until the invention of agriculture,'' Ludwig says, ''which was only 10,000 years ago.'' This is discussed frequently in the anthropology texts but is mostly absent from the obesity literature, with the prominent exception of the low-carbohydrate-diet books. What's forgotten in the current controversy is that the low-fat dogma itself is only about 25 years old. Until the late 70's, the accepted wisdom was that fat and protein protected against overeating by making you sated, and that carbohydrates made you fat. In ''The Physiology of Taste,'' for instance, an 1825 discourse considered among the most famous books ever written about food, the French gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin says that he could easily identify the causes of obesity after 30 years of listening to one ''stout party'' after another proclaiming the joys of bread, rice and (from a ''particularly stout party'') potatoes. Brillat-Savarin described the roots of obesity as a natural predisposition conjuncted with the ''floury and feculent substances which man makes the prime ingredients of his daily nourishment.'' He added that the effects of this fecula -- i.e., ''potatoes, grain or any kind of flour'' -- were seen sooner when sugar was added to the diet. This is what my mother taught me 40 years ago, backed up by the vague observation that Italians tended toward corpulence because they ate so much pasta. This observation was actually documented by Ancel Keys, a University of Minnesota physician who noted that fats ''have good staying power,'' by which he meant they are slow to be digested and so lead to satiation, and that Italians were among the heaviest populations he had studied. According to Keys, the Neapolitans, for instance, ate only a little lean meat once or twice a week, but ate bread and pasta every day for lunch and dinner. ''There was no evidence of nutritional deficiency,'' he wrote, ''but the working-class women were fat.'' By the 70's, you could still find articles in the journals describing high rates of obesity in Africa and the Caribbean where diets contained almost exclusively carbohydrates. The common thinking, wrote a former director of the Nutrition Division of the United Nations, was that the ideal diet, one that prevented obesity, snacking and excessive sugar consumption, was a diet ''with plenty of eggs, beef, mutton, chicken, butter and well-cooked vegetables.'' This was the identical prescription Brillat-Savarin put forth in 1825. It was Ancel Keys, paradoxically, who introduced the low-fat-is-good-health dogma in the 50's with his theory that dietary fat raises cholesterol levels and gives you heart disease. Over the next two decades, however, the scientific evidence supporting this theory remained stubbornly ambiguous. The case was eventually settled not by new science but by politics. It began in January 1977, when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its ''Dietary Goals for the United States,'' advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of ''killer diseases'' supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat had become ''this greasy killer'' in the memorable words of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter -- a dubious feast of refined carbohydrates. In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ''It's an imperfect world,'' Rifkind told me. ''The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.'' Some of the best scientists disagreed with this low-fat logic, suggesting that good science was incompatible with such leaps of faith, but they were effectively ignored. Pete Ahrens, whose Rockefeller University laboratory had done the seminal research on cholesterol metabolism, testified to McGovern's committee that everyone responds differently to low-fat diets. It was not a scientific matter who might benefit and who might be harmed, he said, but ''a betting matter.'' Phil Handler, then president of the National Academy of Sciences, testified in Congress to the same effect in 1980. ''What right,'' Handler asked, ''has the federal government to propose that the American people conduct a vast nutritional experiment, with themselves as subjects, on the strength of so very little evidence that it will do them any good?'' Nonetheless, once the N.I.H. signed off on the low-fat doctrine, societal forces took over. The food industry quickly began producing thousands of reduced-fat food products to meet the new recommendations. Fat was removed from foods like Cookies, chips and yogurt. The problem was, it had to be replaced with something as tasty and pleasurable to the palate, which meant some form of sugar, often high-fructose corn syrup. Meanwhile, an entire industry emerged to create fat substitutes, of which Procter & Gamble's olestra was first. And because these reduced-fat meats, cheeses, Snacks and cookies had to compete with a few hundred thousand other food products marketed in America, the industry dedicated considerable advertising effort to reinforcing the less-fat-is-good-health message. Helping the cause was what Walter Willett calls the ''huge forces'' of dietitians, health organizations, consumer groups, health reporters and even cookbook writers, all well-intended missionaries of healthful eating. Few experts now deny that the low-fat message is radically oversimplified. If nothing else, it effectively ignores the fact that unsaturated fats, like olive oil, are relatively good for you: they tend to elevate your good cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (H.D.L.), and lower your bad cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (L.D.L.), at least in comparison to the effect of carbohydrates. While higher L.D.L. raises your heart-disease risk, higher H.D.L. reduces it. What this means is that even saturated fats -- a k a, the bad fats -- are not nearly as deleterious as you would think. True, they will elevate your bad cholesterol, but they will also elevate your good cholesterol. In other words, it's a virtual wash. As Willett explained to me, you will gain little to no health benefit by giving up milk, butter and cheese and eating bagels instead. But it gets even weirder than that. Foods considered more or less deadly under the low-fat dogma turn out to be comparatively benign if you actually look at their fat content. More than two-thirds of the fat in a porterhouse steak, for instance, will definitively improve your cholesterol profile (at least in comparison with the baked potato next to it); it's true that the remainder will raise your L.D.L., the bad stuff, but it will also boost your H.D.L. The same is true for lard. If you work out the numbers, you come to the surreal conclusion that you can eat lard straight from the can and conceivably reduce your risk of heart disease. The crucial example of how the low-fat recommendations were oversimplified is shown by the impact -- potentially lethal, in fact -- of low-fat diets on triglycerides, which are the component molecules of fat. By the late 60's, researchers had shown that high triglyceride levels were at least as common in heart-disease patients as high L.D.L. cholesterol, and that eating a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet would, for many people, raise their triglyceride levels, lower their H.D.L. levels and accentuate what Gerry Reaven, an endocrinologist at Stanford University, called Syndrome X. This is a cluster of conditions that can lead to heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. It took Reaven a decade to convince his peers that Syndrome X was a legitimate health concern, in part because to accept its reality is to accept that low-fat diets will increase the risk of heart disease in a third of the population. ''Sometimes we wish it would go away because nobody knows how to deal with it,'' said Robert Silverman, an N.I.H. researcher, at a 1987 N.I.H. conference. ''High protein levels can be bad for the kidneys. High fat is bad for your heart. Now Reaven is saying not to eat high carbohydrates. We have to eat something.'' Surely, everyone involved in drafting the various dietary guidelines wanted Americans simply to eat less junk food, however you define it, and eat more the way they do in Berkeley, Calif. But we didn't go along. Instead we ate more starches and refined carbohydrates, because calorie for calorie, these are the cheapest nutrients for the food industry to produce, and they can be sold at the highest profit. It's also what we like to eat. Rare is the person under the age of 50 who doesn't prefer a cookie or heavily sweetened yogurt to a head of broccoli. ''All reformers would do well to be conscious of the law of unintended consequences,'' says Alan Stone, who was staff director for McGovern's Senate committee. Stone told me he had an inkling about how the food industry would respond to the new dietary goals back when the hearings were first held. An economist pulled him aside, he said, and gave him a lesson on market disincentives to healthy eating: ''He said if you create a new market with a brand-new manufactured food, give it a brand-new fancy name, put a big advertising budget behind it, you can have a market all to yourself and force your competitors to catch up. You can't do that with fruits and vegetables. It's harder to differentiate an apple from an apple.'' Nutrition researchers also played a role by trying to feed science into the idea that carbohydrates are the ideal nutrient. It had been known, for almost a century, and considered mostly irrelevant to the etiology of obesity, that fat has nine calories per gram compared with four for carbohydrates and protein. Now it became the fail-safe position of the low-fat recommendations: reduce the densest source of calories in the diet and you will lose weight. Then in 1982, J.P. Flatt, a University of Massachusetts biochemist, published his research demonstrating that, in any normal diet, it is extremely rare for the human body to convert carbohydrates into body fat. This was then misinterpreted by the media and quite a few scientists to mean that eating carbohydrates, even to excess, could not make you fat -- which is not the case, Flatt says. But the misinterpretation developed a vigorous life of its own because it resonated with the notion that fat makes you fat and carbohydrates are harmless. As a result, the major trends in American diets since the late 70's, according to the U.S.D.A. agricultural economist Judith Putnam, have been a decrease in the percentage of fat calories and a ''greatly increased consumption of carbohydrates.'' To be precise, annual grain consumption has increased almost 60 pounds per person, and caloric sweeteners (primarily high-fructose corn syrup) by 30 pounds. At the same time, we suddenly began consuming more total calories: now up to 400 more each day since the government started recommending low-fat diets. If these trends are correct, then the obesity epidemic can certainly be explained by Americans' eating more calories than ever -- excess calories, after all, are what causes us to gain weight -- and, specifically, more carbohydrates. The question is why? The answer provided by Endocrinology 101 is that we are simply hungrier than we were in the 70's, and the reason is physiological more than psychological. In this case, the salient factor -- ignored in the pursuit of fat and its effect on cholesterol -- is how carbohydrates affect blood sugar and insulin. In fact, these were obvious culprits all along, which is why Atkins and the low-carb-diet doctors pounced on them early. The primary role of insulin is to regulate blood-sugar levels. After you eat carbohydrates, they will be broken down into their component sugar molecules and transported into the bloodstream. Your pancreas then secretes insulin, which shunts the blood sugar into muscles and the liver as fuel for the next few hours. This is why carbohydrates have a significant impact on insulin and fat does not. And because juvenile diabetes is caused by a lack of insulin, physicians believed since the 20's that the only evil with insulin is not having enough. But insulin also regulates fat metabolism. We cannot store body fat without it. Think of insulin as a switch. When it's on, in the few hours after eating, you burn carbohydrates for energy and store excess calories as fat. When it's off, after the insulin has been depleted, you burn fat as fuel. So when insulin levels are low, you will burn your own fat, but not when they're high. This is where it gets unavoidably complicated. The fatter you are, the more insulin your pancreas will pump out per meal, and the more likely you'll develop what's called ''insulin resistance,'' which is the underlying cause of Syndrome X. In effect, your cells become insensitive to the action of insulin, and so you need ever greater amounts to keep your blood sugar in check. So as you gain weight, insulin makes it easier to store fat and harder to lose it. But the insulin resistance in turn may make it harder to store fat -- your weight is being kept in check, as it should be. But now the insulin resistance might prompt your pancreas to produce even more insulin, potentially starting a vicious cycle. Which comes first -- the obesity, the elevated insulin, known as hyperinsulinemia, or the insulin resistance -- is a chicken-and-egg problem that hasn't been resolved. One endocrinologist described this to me as ''the Nobel-prize winning question.'' Insulin also profoundly affects hunger, although to what end is another point of controversy. On the one hand, insulin can indirectly cause hunger by lowering your blood sugar, but how low does blood sugar have to drop before hunger kicks in? That's unresolved. Meanwhile, insulin works in the brain to suppress hunger. The theory, as explained to me by Michael Schwartz, an endocrinologist at the University of Washington, is that insulin's ability to inhibit appetite would normally counteract its propensity to generate body fat. In other words, as you gained weight, your body would generate more insulin after every meal, and that in turn would suppress your appetite; you'd eat less and lose the weight. Schwartz, however, can imagine a simple mechanism that would throw this ''homeostatic'' system off balance: if your brain were to lose its sensitivity to insulin, just as your fat and muscles do when they are flooded with it. Now the higher insulin production that comes with getting fatter would no longer compensate by suppressing your appetite, because your brain would no longer register the rise in insulin. The end result would be a physiologic state in which obesity is almost preordained, and one in which the carbohydrate-insulin connection could play a major role. Schwartz says he believes this could indeed be happening, but research hasn't progressed far enough to prove it. ''It is just a hypothesis,'' he says. ''It still needs to be sorted out.'' David Ludwig, the Harvard endocrinologist, says that it's the direct effect of insulin on blood sugar that does the trick. He notes that when diabetics get too much insulin, their blood sugar drops and they get ravenously hungry. They gain weight because they eat more, and the insulin promotes fat deposition. The same happens with lab animals. This, he says, is effectively what happens when we eat carbohydrates -- in particular sugar and starches like potatoes and rice, or anything made from flour, like a slice of white bread. These are known in the jargon as high-glycemic-index carbohydrates, which means they are absorbed quickly into the blood. As a result, they cause a spike of blood sugar and a surge of insulin within minutes. The resulting rush of insulin stores the blood sugar away and a few hours later, your blood sugar is lower than it was before you ate. As Ludwig explains, your body effectively thinks it has run out of fuel, but the insulin is still high enough to prevent you from burning your own fat. The result is hunger and a craving for more carbohydrates. It's another vicious circle, and another situation ripe for obesity. The glycemic-index concept and the idea that starches can be absorbed into the blood even faster than sugar emerged in the late 70's, but again had no influence on public health recommendations, because of the attendant controversies. To wit: if you bought the glycemic-index concept, then you had to accept that the starches we were supposed to be eating 6 to 11 times a day were, once swallowed, physiologically indistinguishable from sugars. This made them seem considerably less than wholesome. Rather than accept this possibility, the policy makers simply allowed sugar and corn syrup to elude the vilification that befell dietary fat. After all, they are fat-free. Sugar and corn syrup from soft drinks, juices and the copious teas and sports drinks now supply more than 10 percent of our total calories; the 80's saw the introduction of Big Gulps and 32-ounce cups of Coca-Cola, blasted through with sugar, but 100 percent fat free. When it comes to insulin and blood sugar, these soft drinks and fruit juices -- what the scientists call ''wet carbohydrates'' -- might indeed be worst of all. (Diet soda accounts for less than a quarter of the soda market.) The gist of the glycemic-index idea is that the longer it takes the carbohydrates to be digested, the lesser the impact on blood sugar and insulin and the healthier the food. Those foods with the highest rating on the glycemic index are some simple sugars, starches and anything made from flour. Green vegetables, Beans and whole grains cause a much slower rise in blood sugar because they have Fiber, a nondigestible carbohydrate, which slows down digestion and lowers the glycemic index. Protein and fat serve the same purpose, which implies that eating fat can be beneficial, a notion that is still unacceptable. And the glycemic-index concept implies that a primary cause of Syndrome X, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and obesity is the long-term damage caused by the repeated surges of insulin that come from eating starches and refined carbohydrates. This suggests a kind of unified field theory for these chronic diseases, but not one that coexists easily with the low-fat doctrine. At Ludwig's pediatric obesity clinic, he has been prescribing low-glycemic-index diets to children and adolescents for five years now. He does not recommend the Atkins diet because he says he believes such a very low carbohydrate approach is unnecessarily restrictive; instead, he tells his patients to effectively replace refined carbohydrates and starches with vegetables, legumes and fruit. This makes a low-glycemic-index diet consistent with dietary common sense, albeit in a higher-fat kind of way. His clinic now has a nine-month waiting list. Only recently has Ludwig managed to convince the N.I.H. that such diets are worthy of study. His first three grant proposals were summarily rejected, which may explain why much of the relevant research has been done in Canada and in Australia. In April, however, Ludwig received $1.2 million from the N.I.H. to test his low-glycemic-index diet against a traditional low-fat-low-calorie regime. That might help resolve some of the controversy over the role of insulin in obesity, although the redoubtable Robert Atkins might get there first. The 71-year-old Atkins, a graduate of Cornell medical school, says he first tried a very low carbohydrate diet in 1963 after reading about one in the Journal of the American Medical Association. He lost weight effortlessly, had his epiphany and turned a fledgling Manhattan cardiology practice into a thriving obesity clinic. He then alienated the entire medical community by telling his readers to eat as much fat and protein as they wanted, as long as they ate little to no carbohydrates. They would lose weight, he said, because they would keep their insulin down; they wouldn't be hungry; and they would have less resistance to burning their own fat. Atkins also noted that starches and sugar were harmful in any event because they raised triglyceride levels and that this was a greater risk factor for heart disease than cholesterol. Atkins's diet is both the ultimate manifestation of the alternative hypothesis as well as the battleground on which the fat-versus-carbohydrates controversy is likely to be fought scientifically over the next few years. After insisting Atkins was a quack for three decades, obesity experts are now finding it difficult to ignore the copious anecdotal evidence that his diet does just what he has claimed. Take Albert Stunkard, for instance. Stunkard has been trying to treat obesity for half a century, but he told me he had his epiphany about Atkins and maybe about obesity as well just recently when he discovered that the chief of radiology in his hospital had lost 60 pounds on Atkins's diet. ''Well, apparently all the young guys in the hospital are doing it,'' he said. ''So we decided to do a study.'' When I asked Stunkard if he or any of his colleagues considered testing Atkins's diet 30 years ago, he said they hadn't because they thought Atkins was ''a jerk'' who was just out to make money: this ''turned people off, and so nobody took him seriously enough to do what we're finally doing.'' In fact, when the American Medical Association released its scathing critique of Atkins's diet in March 1973, it acknowledged that the diet probably worked, but expressed little interest in why. Through the 60's, this had been a subject of considerable research, with the conclusion that Atkins-like diets were low-calorie diets in disguise; that when you cut out pasta, bread and potatoes, you'll have a hard time eating enough meat, vegetables and cheese to replace the calories. That, however, raised the question of why such a low-calorie regimen would also suppress hunger, which Atkins insisted was the signature characteristic of the diet. One possibility was Endocrinology 101: that fat and protein make you sated and, lacking carbohydrates and the ensuing swings of blood sugar and insulin, you stay sated. The other possibility arose from the fact that Atkins's diet is ''ketogenic.'' This means that insulin falls so low that you enter a state called ketosis, which is what happens during fasting and starvation. Your muscles and tissues burn body fat for energy, as does your brain in the form of fat molecules produced by the liver called ketones. Atkins saw ketosis as the obvious way to kick-start weight loss. He also liked to say that ketosis was so energizing that it was better than sex, which set him up for some ridicule. An inevitable criticism of Atkins's diet has been that ketosis is dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. When I interviewed ketosis experts, however, they universally sided with Atkins, and suggested that maybe the medical community and the media confuse ketosis with ketoacidosis, a variant of ketosis that occurs in untreated diabetics and can be fatal. ''Doctors are scared of ketosis,'' says Richard Veech, an N.I.H. researcher who studied medicine at Harvard and then got his doctorate at Oxford University with the Nobel Laureate Hans Krebs. ''They're always worried about diabetic ketoacidosis. But ketosis is a normal physiologic state. I would argue it is the normal state of man. It's not normal to have McDonald's and a delicatessen around every corner. It's normal to starve.'' Simply put, ketosis is evolution's answer to the thrifty gene. We may have evolved to efficiently store fat for times of famine, says Veech, but we also evolved ketosis to efficiently live off that fat when necessary. Rather than being poison, which is how the press often refers to ketones, they make the body run more efficiently and provide a backup fuel source for the brain. Veech calls ketones ''magic'' and has shown that both the heart and brain run 25 percent more efficiently on ketones than on blood sugar. The bottom line is that for the better part of 30 years Atkins insisted his diet worked and was safe, Americans apparently tried it by the tens of millions, while nutritionists, physicians, public- health authorities and anyone concerned with heart disease insisted it could kill them, and expressed little or no desire to find out who was right. During that period, only two groups of U.S. researchers tested the diet, or at least published their results. In the early 70's, J.P. Flatt and Harvard's George Blackburn pioneered the ''protein-sparing modified fast'' to treat postsurgical patients, and they tested it on obese volunteers. Blackburn, who later became president of the American Society of Clinical Nutrition, describes his regime as ''an Atkins diet without excess fat'' and says he had to give it a fancy name or nobody would take him seriously. The diet was ''lean meat, fish and fowl'' supplemented by Vitamins and minerals. ''People loved it,'' Blackburn recalls. ''Great weight loss. We couldn't run them off with a baseball bat.'' Blackburn successfully treated hundreds of obese patients over the next decade and published a series of papers that were ignored. When obese New Englanders turned to appetite-control drugs in the mid-80's, he says, he let it drop. He then applied to the N.I.H. for a grant to do a clinical trial of popular diets but was rejected. The second trial, published in September 1980, was done at the George Washington University Medical Center. Two dozen obese volunteers agreed to follow Atkins's diet for eight weeks and lost an average of 17 pounds each, with no apparent ill effects, although their L.D.L. cholesterol did go up. The researchers, led by John LaRosa, now president of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, concluded that the 17-pound weight loss in eight weeks would likely have happened with any diet under ''the novelty of trying something under experimental conditions'' and never pursued it further. Now researchers have finally decided that Atkins's diet and other low-carb diets have to be tested, and are doing so against traditional low-calorie-low-fat diets as recommended by the American Heart Association. To explain their motivation, they inevitably tell one of two stories: some, like Stunkard, told me that someone they knew -- a patient, a friend, a fellow physician -- lost considerable weight on Atkins's diet and, despite all their preconceptions to the contrary, kept it off. Others say they were frustrated with their inability to help their obese patients, looked into the low-carb diets and decided that Endocrinology 101 was compelling. ''As a trained physician, I was trained to mock anything like the Atkins diet,'' says Linda Stern, an internist at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Hospital, ''but I put myself on the diet. I did great. And I thought maybe this is something I can offer my patients.'' None of these studies have been financed by the N.I.H., and none have yet been published. But the results have been reported at conferences -- by researchers at Schneider Children's Hospital on Long Island, Duke University and the University of Cincinnati, and by Stern's group at the Philadelphia V.A. Hospital. And then there's the study Stunkard had mentioned, led by Gary Foster at the University of Pennsylvania, Sam Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, and Jim Hill, who runs the University of Colorado Center for Human Nutrition in Denver. The results of all five of these studies are remarkably consistent. Subjects on some form of the Atkins diet -- whether overweight adolescents on the diet for 12 weeks as at Schneider, or obese adults averaging 295 pounds on the diet for six months, as at the Philadelphia V.A. -- lost twice the weight as the subjects on the low-fat, low-calorie diets. In all five studies, cholesterol levels improved similarly with both diets, but triglyceride levels were considerably lower with the Atkins diet. Though researchers are hesitant to agree with this, it does suggest that heart-disease risk could actually be reduced when fat is added back into the diet and starches and refined carbohydrates are removed. ''I think when this stuff gets to be recognized,'' Stunkard says, ''it's going to really shake up a lot of thinking about obesity and metabolism.'' All of this could be settled sooner rather than later, and with it, perhaps, we might have some long-awaited answers as to why we grow fat and whether it is indeed preordained by societal forces or by our choice of foods. For the first time, the N.I.H. is now actually financing comparative studies of popular diets. Foster, Klein and Hill, for instance, have now received more than $2.5 million from N.I.H. to do a five-year trial of the Atkins diet with 360 obese individuals. At Harvard, Willett, Blackburn and Penelope Greene have money, albeit from Atkins's nonprofit foundation, to do a comparative trial as well. Should these clinical trials also find for Atkins and his high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, then the public-health authorities may indeed have a problem on their hands. Once they took their leap of faith and settled on the low-fat dietary dogma 25 years ago, they left little room for contradictory evidence or a change of opinion, should such a change be necessary to keep up with the science. In this light Sam Klein's experience is noteworthy. Klein is president-elect of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, which suggests that he is a highly respected member of his community. And yet, he described his recent experience discussing the Atkins diet at medical conferences as a learning experience. ''I have been impressed,'' he said, ''with the anger of academicians in the audience. Their response is 'How dare you even present data on the Atkins diet!' '' This hostility stems primarily from their anxiety that Americans, given a glimmer of hope about their weight, will rush off en masse to try a diet that simply seems intuitively dangerous and on which there is still no long-term data on whether it works and whether it is safe. It's a justifiable fear. In the course of my research, I have spent my mornings at my local diner, staring down at a plate of scrambled eggs and sausage, convinced that somehow, some way, they must be working to clog my arteries and do me in. After 20 years steeped in a low-fat paradigm, I find it hard to see the nutritional world any other way. I have learned that low-fat diets fail in clinical trials and in real life, and they certainly have failed in my life. I have read the papers suggesting that 20 years of low-fat recommendations have not managed to lower the incidence of heart disease in this country, and may have led instead to the steep increase in obesity and Type 2 diabetes. I have interviewed researchers whose computer models have calculated that cutting back on the saturated fats in my diet to the levels recommended by the American Heart Association would not add more than a few months to my life, if that. I have even lost considerable weight with relative ease by giving up carbohydrates on my test diet, and yet I can look down at my eggs and sausage and still imagine the imminent onset of heart disease and obesity, the latter assuredly to be caused by some bizarre rebound phenomena the likes of which science has not yet begun to describe. The fact that Atkins himself has had heart trouble recently does not ease my anxiety, despite his assurance that it is not diet-related. This is the state of mind I imagine that mainstream nutritionists, researchers and physicians must inevitably take to the fat-versus-carbohydrate controversy. They may come around, but the evidence will have to be exceptionally compelling. Although this kind of conversion may be happening at the moment to John Farquhar, who is a professor of health research and policy at Stanford University and has worked in this field for more than 40 years. When I interviewed Farquhar in April, he explained why low-fat diets might lead to weight gain and low-carbohydrate diets might lead to weight loss, but he made me promise not to say he believed they did. He attributed the cause of the obesity epidemic to the ''force-feeding of a nation.'' Three weeks later, after reading an article on Endocrinology 101 by David Ludwig in the Journal of the American Medical Association, he sent me an e-mail message asking the not-entirely-rhetorical question, ''Can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?''

superfatty, your last comment is not just comical but reflects some fundamental misunderstandings. I didn't get fat because of overeating. And no one gets fat if they are able to listen to their inner guidance and follow it, not from overeating. Do you read any scientific studies about obesity? Increasingly medical science is proving, through random-access controlled studies, the kind that meet the top industry standards, that obesity is rarely the result of pigging out o food. That is such an outdated attitude. Obesity is increasingly seen as an illness in and of itself. I know some morbidly obese people eat copious volumes of food but not all that many. And why do they? Increasingly SCIENCE is revealing that folks who compulsively overeat do so because of underlying health reasons. Sure some of it is in the head and if that belief works for you, stick with it, honey. But increasingly obesity is being understood as the result of underlying, untreated, unrecognized health issues. I didn't get fat by pigging out on food. I got fat by taking several medications for over ten years that have now been shown to damage the body's metabolism and cause rapid weight gain. AS I watched myself morph from a normal sized thirty-something to a morbidly obese person, I wondered what the heck was I doing? Did I get up in the night and binge eat while sleepwalking? Did I go into psychotic trances and swing by fast food joints? Cause I never pigged out. Have you ever eaten a whole pint of ice cream in one sitting? I have. My first time was when I was in my fifties and my skinny close friend showed me she filld her freezer with pints of fancy ice cream to eat for dinner when her husband traveled. Until that moment, it had never occurred to me to eat more than a modest serving of ice cream. And I was the only adult in the house when I packed on the drug-influenced rapid weight gain so that meant only I bought the food in. I wasn't unconscoiusly binge eating. I packed on weight because the drugs I took damaged my metabolism. Gosh, what unenlightened thinking to believe people only get fat from pigging out. And if you think I am making up my science: three of the drugs I took have had class action law suits against them, and the plaintiffs (the victims) won. They couldn't sue for weight gain because fat is not a protected class in this country (i am a lawyer so if I sound like one, that's why) but they sued because each of these three drugs, in addition to damaging the metabolism and causing weight gain also tended to cause the onset of diabetes. And guess what? I developed diabetes, and not Type II but Type I. Type I's are usually skinny but those cursed drugs made me fat. Not every fat person pigs out. In fact, relatively few do. Cling to that if you must. And yes, it is about our heads as much as our bodies. Which is why I still say to Ms Kee Kee: trust yourself. Anyone that doesn't trust themselves, I feel sorry for them. Maybe some obese people did not always trust themselves but two weeks before bariatric surgery is a good time to start. How are you going to change the head game if you don't trust yourself? I won't give my power over to health care professionals. Sure I want their advice but I don't just see allopathic doctors. If I have the surgery, still an if for me, for I have lost 90 pounds on my own -- altho that could simply be the result of my Type I diabetes and I just think it is all the changes I have made in what I eat. Did you read the post about the gal whose own doctor said if she didn't eat anything she's gain because of her hypothyroidism? Hypothyroidism is real. There are a million stories in the naked city, and in the land of fat people. Don't assume everyone got fat the way you did. And I am not even assuming how you got fat altho you seem to suggest you pigged out. I didn't. I have never eaten immodestly and I have always swum laps at least five times a week for decades as well as other exercise. I got fat because of health conditions. You just watch. In the future, obesity is going to be given respect as a medical condition and not stigmatied as fatties pigging out. You stigmatize yourself that way.

Butterthebean -- I think your response to what I wrote was a gross overreaction. Did you read the original post in this thread? She said she was eating two meals a day, gaining weight, approved for surgery and her doc had drawn an absurd line saying if she gained one more pound . . . . and you took what I said out of the whole context of my comment. And she was only talking about two weeks. Do you seriously think eating three meals a day for two weeks versus continuing what she was doing for two weeks is going to make any meaningful difference in her post-op recovery and establishment of new habits? Obviously I have no criteria by which to judge this person's actual NUT. Have you met a lot of middle aged nutritionists who have devoted their lives to undertanding the nuances of how nutrition affects the human body, working to understand human metabolism, hormones, hypothyroidism, etc? I haven't. I have only met NUT's, and at some fairly prestigious institutions, who are young, poorly trained and, with a couple exceptions, fat bigots who don't believe patients can gain weight while not eating much food. Also Butterbean, you seem to give MD's a lot more power than they deserve. Has anyone reading this ever been misdiagnosed multiple times as I have? It is called the PRACTICE of medicine for a reason. People undergoing any major surgery have to trust their surgeons but let's dispense with the notion that surgeons are all knowing or that many of them know much at all about nutrition, hormones, thyroid issues. My surgeon performs surgeries five days a week. She does bariatric surgeries on Tuesdays. I don't kid myself that she knows about all aspects of my nutrition, my metabolism. And I do not trust the NUT I was required to see (fortunately only once) to be approved for surgery. Two weeks. One pound. Two meals. Three meals. For two weeks, it doesn't much matter. I don't think I crossed a line but you are entitled to your opinion. I think it is a disservice to encourge people to have blind faith in the health care system -- the system does not deserve it. Lucky for me, my primary care doc knows about my deep skepticism and distrust. My bariatric surgery office thinks I blindly trust all of them. Here is what I trust: my own very deep understanding of nutrition, my own personal biochemist-trained nutritionist independent of my bariatric clinic and my surgeon's skills. All the insurance hoops, advice popped off by mostly young and often poorly educated "nutritionists" is a lot of sound and fury signifying little. I am the one who is going to have to eat right post op, gaining or not gaining a pound before surgery has little to do with anything. I reiterate my earlier position: she needs to be honest with herself about what she is eating. For two weeks, what she does hardly matters. Being honest with herself about what she is eating matters hugely . but it is a common non-professional's fantasy that alll health care 'professionals' are knowledgeable and have state-of-the-art advice to offer. That's fantasy. Surgeons, even bariataric ones, very very rarely know anything about nutrition, metabolism, how weight can fluctuate with no changes in food. It's a common fallacy in this culture to believe weight gain and loss is about calories in, calories out. I liked the person who wrote about how they gained weight because of hypothyroidism. We all want to have the fantasy that our doctors are gods. They aren't. And I didn't tell her to lie to her doctor. I told her not to tell them. The doc was only looking at a number on a scale so give him the number he wants to see without telling him how you got it. Denying someone for surgery for one pound is absurd and I bet the doc was bluffing. I have observed that many folks involved in prep for bariatric surgery freely use manipulative techniques to bully patients. Manipulating people is not going to get them to change life patterns. and Buttertebean, since you appear to have had your surgery a long while ago and I assume it has been a success and you have kept the weight off, I also assume you know that how much a person weighs, how much a person gains and loses, is not always -- and in fact rarely is -- a simple calories in calories out calculation. Obesity is complex. Medical science is showing increasingly that much, if not most, obesity is the result of health issues and not what a person ate. You want to believe in the fantasy that medical professionals are gods, go ahead. But they are not. I told her to trust herself, be honest with herself. for two weeks. over one pound. Any doc who would actually cancel surgery over one pound is no doc I want to see. They were being maniulative, I think. I toild her to trust herself.

I don't think you will be 'successful' until you get to green zone. That's when the band is working at it's full potential. You've come too far to stop trying now, get back in the saddle now and get a fill asap, before the holidays get here. IMO you putting off a very needed fill, will lead to more weight gain and more regret, which it sounds like you don't need any more of at the moment. But, why would you say you're so hungry and say you're not at green, and say you're not happy with the rate of weight loss you've had and then say you don't want a fill until after Christmas??? Are you just giving yourself some "room" to eat more and eat things that you want that are not as easily eaten with more restriction? I think you need to see your surgeon and let him know how you're feeling. No one wants to see you down on your band and not succeeding. But you really should ask yourself what your motives are cause I'm just puzzled why you wouldn't want a fill now asap. Best wishes.

I'll go back to my "in a perfect world" state of mind…… I think it is healthier to lose a bit slower than weight virtually melting off from malabsorption. However (as I've been told), some people are in such a horrible state of health, which is more dangerous to them than the rapid loss. I agree with you……I don't think it's healthy, but some folks are at deaths door from diabetes, etc. The thing that I don't like about the RNY honeymoon period, is that the weight seems to come off effortlessly. Effortlessly isn't reality, and sooner or later that stops, and they end up where we were immediately post op. I almost had that surgery; was scheduled for it, but freaked out 10 days prior. I was deathly afraid of potential irreversible complications, so I went with the band plus plication. I sleep a lot better at night knowing that I can "undo" the whole thing, should problems arise. I had lunch with a woman yesterday, who has had her band since Allergan put them on the market. She did very well; lost lots of weight, looked great, etc. But over the years and various life events, she's put back all but 20 pounds. She's still got the band, but she's not working it. But she has had that band inside her body for many years, with zero issues. I hope to God that is me……not the weight gain part, but a happily settled in band :-) I know I keep saying this, but I feel strongly about it. No one surgery is better than the other. It just depends on the person, and what works best for them. I went to a general support group at my doctor's office, and there were several RNY patients. All of them felt that if they were going through surgery, that they wanted to go through with (as they put it) the BIG surgery. They've all done very well…….to date. With compulsive overeaters, it really is a day to day thing. I've heard people (one in particular) stand up in these forums, claiming to be cured of this affliction. I say…..the jury will always be out, until our dying day. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

[i think links are not working on the iPhone and ipad apps. Also, not sure if others will see this, but there are a lot of HTML tags appearing in posts. I think lipstick lady copied the text from the link, but on my ipad app, it's unreadable because the HTML tags.. QUOTE=LipstickLady] How to Be a Good Ally to Fat People Who Appear to Have Lost Weight <div style="font-size:14px;margin:0px 0px 15px;color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:'proxima-nova', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(233,246,254);"><span>November 14, 2013</span> | by <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://everydayfeminism.com/author/bevinb/'>Bevin Branlandingham</a> <div style="color:rgb(17,17,17);font-family:'proxima-nova', sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(233,246,254);"> <div style="background-color:rgb(245,245,245);text-align:center;"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/10079750784_0fc03ca2c1_z.jpg'><img height="199" src="http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/10079750784_0fc03ca2c1_z-300x199.jpg" width="300" alt="10079750784_0fc03ca2c1_z-300x199.jpg"></a> <p class="" style="color:rgb(170,170,170);font-size:12px;">Source: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.flickr.com/photos/bevin/10079750784/'>Flickr</a> <p style="font-size:16px;"> <p style="font-size:16px;"><i>Originally published on </i><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://queerfatfemme.com/2013/10/04/how-to-be-a-good-ally-to-fat-people-who-appear-to-have-lost-weight/'><i>***** Fat Femme</i></a><i> and cross-posted here with their permission.</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">Our culture normalizes talking about bodies all the time. <p style="font-size:16px;">There is especially a lot of value placed on weight gain or loss. <p style="font-size:16px;">Turn on a television and just listen to diet chatter. It’s pervasive, obnoxious, and well-meaning individuals perpetuate it in our personal lives all the time. <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>I like to create an environment in my life that is about substance over small talk, where compliments are genuine and weight is value-neutral.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;"><i>“Oh, but Bevin,”</i> you may be saying. <i>“I really mean it as a compliment when I notice you’ve lost weight!”</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">But, well-intentioned friend, <b>just because you’re well-intentioned doesn’t mean what you say doesn’t have a harmful impact.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">Weight loss doesn’t mean I look good. <p style="font-size:16px;">I believe I look good at all of my weights – all bodies are good bodies. <p style="font-size:16px;">And I know your perception of me might have changed because you are socialized to believe smaller is better, but I would like to gently invite you to do something different with your non-pliments of <i>“You look so good!”</i> when someone has lost weight. <p style="font-size:16px;">It’s also important to remember that the well-intentioned friends come in all shapes and sizes, fat, thin, and in-between. <b>1. How About Don’t Talk About It?</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">I strongly subscribe to the philosophy that <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://queerfatfemme.com/2013/10/04/how-to-be-a-good-ally-to-fat-people-who-appear-to-have-lost-weight/%E2%80%9Dhttp:/queerfatfemme.com/2013/06/24/my-bodys-nobodys-business-but-my-own/%E2%80%9D'>my body is nobody’s business but my own</a>. If I want to talk about it with someone, I will and I do. <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>I completely understand the inclination to ask questions about an obvious change.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">I am a naturally inquisitive person. My friends call me the ***** Oprah because of my tendency to really like to get into the meat of people’s stories. <p style="font-size:16px;">But as I’ve learned how to become a more sensitive and compassionate person, I have had to learn that <b>sometimes you <i>just don’t ask</i> and you stay in the dark.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">It feels kind of impossible not to be nosy about it, but I do it anyway because it’s not my business. <p style="font-size:16px;">Also, <i>what if you’re wrong?</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">A friend of mine just said she gets asked all the time if she lost weight when she puts her hair down! <p style="font-size:16px;">Being nosy and being inquisitive are natural things that I am still working on curtailing. But I think it’s worth it to do the work to be sensitive because I don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. <p style="font-size:16px;">I want my friends to feel like they can be their most vibrant and awesome selves around me. <b>2. Wait for the Person to Bring It Up</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">Have you ever noticed that lots of straight people will out themselves to you within about ten minutes of conversation? Sometimes as short as two. <p style="font-size:16px;">Straight people in a heteropatriarchy are reaffirmed all the time about how great, normal, and important their straightness is. Therefore, they have likely not had the experience of having to hide or code their sexuality to people. <p style="font-size:16px;">They don’t really play the <i>“pronoun” </i>game and affirm their heterosexuality without thinking about it. <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>The same is true for lots of people who have lost weight.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">In a diet-obsessed culture, it is super normalized that weight loss is a good thing. People who are excited about their weight loss will probably bring it up because it is normalized to talk about people’s bodies whether that is right or wrong. <p style="font-size:16px;">So <b>let it happen if it will organically.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">People don’t stop to think about whether or not weight loss might be a sign of someone’s increased health or not. I know many people who have had cancer that lost a lot of weight rapidly. <p style="font-size:16px;"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://queerfatfemme.com/2013/10/04/how-to-be-a-good-ally-to-fat-people-who-appear-to-have-lost-weight/%E2%80%9Dhttp:/www.candyekane.com/%E2%80%9D'>Candye Kane</a> (an amazing blues singer) said on stage once, <i>“I don’t recommend the cancer diet.”</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">Maybe just <b>ask them what’s going on in their life and talk to them</b> organically. <p style="font-size:16px;">The core questions you have about them may just come to light. But, again, their body is none of your business unless they bring it up. <p style="font-size:16px;">If they do bring up their weight loss in a positive manner, you can do the work of someone working in solidarity with fat people by saying, <i>“I think you look great at any weight, but I’m really glad you feel good in your body right now.”</i> <b>3. Mention a General Compliment That Is More Neutral</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">If you <i>really</i> want to compliment someone because you genuinely think they look good, there are lots of things about someone’s appearance you can go for. <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>Instead of mentioning weight loss thing, if you want to compliment someone, you can go for something else.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;"><i>“Your hair looks great!”</i> Or maybe: <i>“I love this outfit!”</i> <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>There are a bunch of different ways to express positivity to someone that don’t take into account weight loss and reinforce that weight loss is the only way to look good.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">I can see friends who come at me when I’ve lost weight sort of looking for a way to talk about my appearance without going down the wrong road because they know I loved myself X number of pounds ago and they don’t want to bury themselves in the wrong kind of compliment. <b>4. Comment on the Self</b> <p style="font-size:16px;"><i>“You seem particularly present tonight. I don’t know what it is, but you just seem extra YOU today. I love it!”</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">If you must say something to the person, I suggest the foregoing. Kris Ford gave me this quote. <p style="font-size:16px;">I think it’s really great! <p style="font-size:16px;">What a remarkable way to get to the essence of what your weight loss compliment is really about. <p style="font-size:16px;">When we stop to think about what we really mean when we’re talking to people, we might be able to clearly communicate without hurting them. <b>5. Absolutely Don’t Ask Someone What They’re Doing</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">Oh my God, my family is so into this discussion. <p style="font-size:16px;">I zone out when I start to hear diet talk, Weight Watchers, walking the track, whatever new thing they’re doing. <p style="font-size:16px;">I truly believe in <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://queerfatfemme.com/tag/health-at-every-size/'>health at every size</a> and will totally pipe into discussions of fitness, feeling good in your body, and other things from an <i>“All Bodies Are Good Bodies</i>” perspective. <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>But I have <i>heard “What are you doing?”</i> question so many times, and I just absolutely hate it.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">Again, often folks will offer it if they want to. But in general, the<i> “what you’re doing” </i>question is such a standard thing people think is okay to ask, but it’s actually really personal! <p style="font-size:16px;">I have a super close friend I asked this question of because I genuinely had no idea how she had lost weight and wondered. But I’m close enough to her that when she dropped that it was an eating disorder, it was a safe® space to talk about it. <p style="font-size:16px;">I also learned from that moment to <b>tread even a little more lightly with that stuff, to open those kinds of conversations with gentle warnings, or to open slowly.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">Because people who are just hanging out or going about their life maybe don’t want to just talk about their traumas out of the blue because you want to comment on their bodies. <p style="font-size:16px;text-align:center;">*** <p style="font-size:16px;"><b>I struggle with what to say to people when they comment about changes to my weight.</b> <p style="font-size:16px;">True fact about me: I tend to be an emotional non-eater. <p style="font-size:16px;">If I am going through a rough time, I will likely lose some weight. I lost sixty pounds when my fiance left me. And every time someone commented on my weight, I would say, <i>“Bad break-up.”</i> I would kind of grumpily respond to a nonpliment with snark. <p style="font-size:16px;">I don’t always want to do that, but I really leave it up to how I am feeling in that moment. <p style="font-size:16px;">Sometimes I go with, <i>“I think I look great at any size.”</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">Often, especially if it is a friend or loved one, I go with a very long explanation of what lead to my recent weight loss so that they understand what I’m going through, that it’s been a real struggle, and that the weight loss is a byproduct of a larger initiative to resolve a chronic condition I have. <p style="font-size:16px;">Sometimes, I just respond to weight loss nonpliments graciously because it’s not worth the fight. <p style="font-size:16px;">I learned to respond to compliments I didn’t agree with back when I was still self-hating. <p style="font-size:16px;">I would do things like respond to compliments with, <i>“Oh, I don’t look good. I still have xyz wrong with me.”</i> And I replaced that with a simple <i>“thank you”</i> until I was ready to really hear and absorb good things about myself. <p style="font-size:16px;">A friend told me once, <i>“Hi skinny,”</i> in response to weight loss. <p style="font-size:16px;">My response was, <i>“Um, I don’t identify as skinny.”</i> Because anytime I’ve ever lost weight in my life (as someone who has a lifetime of fat experience), I have always been fat. <p style="font-size:16px;">And, in the case of my beloved Grandmother, I accept her compliments graciously and deeply appreciate when my mom pipes in with, <i>“But we love you at any size.”</i> <p style="font-size:16px;">Because sometimes it’s not worth the fight. <p style="font-size:16px;">But it is amazing to have my mom acting in solidarity with my politics and values around all bodies being good bodies at any size. <p style="font-size:16px;">This was not always the case, but working with her in love, respect and compassion through the last twelve years of my participation in body liberation activism, has actually been really rewarding.

That's interesting, because my doctor won't set the date until everything else is in place. I got my insurance approval in just one week. I do all my pre-op testing and blood work next week. Then, I see the surgeon and we set the date! I am hoping for the week of Dec. 16th, but we will see! So tips to get your primary doc to support you include the following: 1. Discussion of past attempts to lose weight and the outcomes of that over time. For me, each attempt eventually resulted in gaining MORE weight back than I had lost on various plans. So years of yo yo dieting is considered to be very bad. 2. Progressive weight gain year over year as you've aged. 3. Actual or emerging health concerns caused by or increased by being obese. 4. Physical and life limitations caused by your weight. 5. Therapist, family and or friend support of your weight loss goals. Hope this helps. Good luck!

How to Be a Good Ally to Fat People Who Appear to Have Lost Weight November 14, 2013 | by Bevin Branlandingham Source: Flickr Originally published on Queer Fat Femme and cross-posted here with their permission. Our culture normalizes talking about bodies all the time. There is especially a lot of value placed on weight gain or loss. Turn on a television and just listen to diet chatter. It’s pervasive, obnoxious, and well-meaning individuals perpetuate it in our personal lives all the time. I like to create an environment in my life that is about substance over small talk, where compliments are genuine and weight is value-neutral. “Oh, but Bevin,” you may be saying. “I really mean it as a compliment when I notice you’ve lost weight!” But, well-intentioned friend, just because you’re well-intentioned doesn’t mean what you say doesn’t have a harmful impact. Weight loss doesn’t mean I look good. I believe I look good at all of my weights – all bodies are good bodies. And I know your perception of me might have changed because you are socialized to believe smaller is better, but I would like to gently invite you to do something different with your non-pliments of “You look so good!” when someone has lost weight. It’s also important to remember that the well-intentioned friends come in all shapes and sizes, fat, thin, and in-between. 1. How About Don’t Talk About It?I strongly subscribe to the philosophy that my body is nobody’s business but my own. If I want to talk about it with someone, I will and I do. I completely understand the inclination to ask questions about an obvious change. I am a naturally inquisitive person. My friends call me the Queer Oprah because of my tendency to really like to get into the meat of people’s stories. But as I’ve learned how to become a more sensitive and compassionate person, I have had to learn that sometimes you just don’t ask and you stay in the dark. It feels kind of impossible not to be nosy about it, but I do it anyway because it’s not my business. Also, what if you’re wrong? A friend of mine just said she gets asked all the time if she lost weight when she puts her hair down! Being nosy and being inquisitive are natural things that I am still working on curtailing. But I think it’s worth it to do the work to be sensitive because I don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. I want my friends to feel like they can be their most vibrant and awesome selves around me. 2. Wait for the Person to Bring It UpHave you ever noticed that lots of straight people will out themselves to you within about ten minutes of conversation? Sometimes as short as two. Straight people in a heteropatriarchy are reaffirmed all the time about how great, normal, and important their straightness is. Therefore, they have likely not had the experience of having to hide or code their sexuality to people. They don’t really play the “pronoun” game and affirm their heterosexuality without thinking about it. The same is true for lots of people who have lost weight. In a diet-obsessed culture, it is super normalized that weight loss is a good thing. People who are excited about their weight loss will probably bring it up because it is normalized to talk about people’s bodies whether that is right or wrong. So let it happen if it will organically. People don’t stop to think about whether or not weight loss might be a sign of someone’s increased health or not. I know many people who have had cancer that lost a lot of weight rapidly. Candye Kane (an amazing blues singer) said on stage once, “I don’t recommend the cancer diet.” Maybe just ask them what’s going on in their life and talk to them organically. The core questions you have about them may just come to light. But, again, their body is none of your business unless they bring it up. If they do bring up their weight loss in a positive manner, you can do the work of someone working in solidarity with fat people by saying, “I think you look great at any weight, but I’m really glad you feel good in your body right now.” 3. Mention a General Compliment That Is More NeutralIf you really want to compliment someone because you genuinely think they look good, there are lots of things about someone’s appearance you can go for. Instead of mentioning weight loss thing, if you want to compliment someone, you can go for something else. “Your hair looks great!” Or maybe: “I love this outfit!” There are a bunch of different ways to express positivity to someone that don’t take into account weight loss and reinforce that weight loss is the only way to look good. I can see friends who come at me when I’ve lost weight sort of looking for a way to talk about my appearance without going down the wrong road because they know I loved myself X number of pounds ago and they don’t want to bury themselves in the wrong kind of compliment. 4. Comment on the Self“You seem particularly present tonight. I don’t know what it is, but you just seem extra YOU today. I love it!” If you must say something to the person, I suggest the foregoing. Kris Ford gave me this quote. I think it’s really great! What a remarkable way to get to the essence of what your weight loss compliment is really about. When we stop to think about what we really mean when we’re talking to people, we might be able to clearly communicate without hurting them. 5. Absolutely Don’t Ask Someone What They’re DoingOh my God, my family is so into this discussion. I zone out when I start to hear diet talk, Weight Watchers, walking the track, whatever new thing they’re doing. I truly believe in health at every size and will totally pipe into discussions of fitness, feeling good in your body, and other things from an “All Bodies Are Good Bodies” perspective. But I have heard “What are you doing?” question so many times, and I just absolutely hate it. Again, often folks will offer it if they want to. But in general, the “what you’re doing” question is such a standard thing people think is okay to ask, but it’s actually really personal! I have a super close friend I asked this question of because I genuinely had no idea how she had lost weight and wondered. But I’m close enough to her that when she dropped that it was an eating disorder, it was a safe® space to talk about it. I also learned from that moment to tread even a little more lightly with that stuff, to open those kinds of conversations with gentle warnings, or to open slowly. Because people who are just hanging out or going about their life maybe don’t want to just talk about their traumas out of the blue because you want to comment on their bodies. *** I struggle with what to say to people when they comment about changes to my weight. True fact about me: I tend to be an emotional non-eater. If I am going through a rough time, I will likely lose some weight. I lost sixty pounds when my fiance left me. And every time someone commented on my weight, I would say, “Bad break-up.” I would kind of grumpily respond to a nonpliment with snark. I don’t always want to do that, but I really leave it up to how I am feeling in that moment. Sometimes I go with, “I think I look great at any size.” Often, especially if it is a friend or loved one, I go with a very long explanation of what lead to my recent weight loss so that they understand what I’m going through, that it’s been a real struggle, and that the weight loss is a byproduct of a larger initiative to resolve a chronic condition I have. Sometimes, I just respond to weight loss nonpliments graciously because it’s not worth the fight. I learned to respond to compliments I didn’t agree with back when I was still self-hating. I would do things like respond to compliments with, “Oh, I don’t look good. I still have xyz wrong with me.” And I replaced that with a simple “thank you” until I was ready to really hear and absorb good things about myself. A friend told me once, “Hi skinny,” in response to weight loss. My response was, “Um, I don’t identify as skinny.” Because anytime I’ve ever lost weight in my life (as someone who has a lifetime of fat experience), I have always been fat. And, in the case of my beloved Grandmother, I accept her compliments graciously and deeply appreciate when my mom pipes in with, “But we love you at any size.” Because sometimes it’s not worth the fight. But it is amazing to have my mom acting in solidarity with my politics and values around all bodies being good bodies at any size. This was not always the case, but working with her in love, respect and compassion through the last twelve years of my participation in body liberation activism, has actually been really rewarding.

I haven't been eating the best foods for me which is how I got into the habit of eating less because I couldn't seem to stick with the good for me foods. I only want the surgery to loose the weight, its Hell having no appetite or desire for food and to continue to be this big for no reason. My weight gain is not from an overeating issue, emotional issues or binging. I have another debilitating condition and with weight loss, I will be able to workout minimally and eating less will be now good for me. Plus hoping to get pregnant and learning to eat better is another plus that had escaped me as a young adult. I'm learning more everyday from you all!!

In regards to that, if you were large on top before you gained all the weight, will you still have them after the weight loss? As a teenager I was a 36 C and weighed 115 to 118 pounds but for over a decade now I have been overweight. Ok, not overweight but morbidly obese. I suspect a major part of the reason for the weight gain is hypothyroidism that went undiagnosed for several years because before that I was a healthy active teenager who loved being around people and doing things. Then one day I couldn't get out of bed and stopped having an appetite yet I was gaining weight fairly quickly. I had no idea what hypothyroidism was back then either. Anyways, I am now a 52 DDD but if I went down to a 36 C I would be more than happy with that.

thb, Hello. I didn't know if you were experiencing this personally or if it was just a research q. But yes, you can technically gain weight post fill. Examples: 1) First few fills may not get you to green. Some people may not feel any restriction at all depending on how aggressive/conservative the doc fills them. As a result, they may struggle with hunger, portions and food choices. Resulting in weight gain 2) Too tight? Than there's the bandster who gets too tight of a fill and either they don't recognize the symptoms or are so #'s focused they deal with it. As a result, this bandster does not eat proper foods to avoid getting stuck. Rather, they eat sliders and justify higher cal foods like milkshakes. And, you can stall or gain weight as a consequence. Hope this helps

Has anyone gained weight after a fill?

ok guys, I need help! I am holding steady at the same weight. I was banded 7 weeks ago. I am mostly eating the right things and now walking 2 miles a day 4-5 days a week and going hiking on saturdays for at least 2 miles, sometimes more. I write down everything I eat and I'm going back over the last couple weeks. It seems I get on average of about 1000-1200 cal a day give or take (if I stay away from peanut m&ms!). I eat about 200 cal every couple of hours for about 5 mini-to-avg meals a day. My main focus is to get enough Protein because my biggest fear is my hair falling out. I do take a couple of meds that are on my doctor's list to cause weight gain so wondering if this is an issue also... Yesterday - this is mostly an average day (except when i cave on the chocolate) Breakfast: 4oz light cottage cheese, special k Protein Bar (260 cal) snack: apple (72 cal) lunch: progresso light soup, sugar free pudding (180 cal) snack: greek yogurt, banana (265 cal) dinner: jack in the box grilled chicken strips (4 strips) (250 cal) TOTAL: 1112 calories for the day (also walked for 35 minutes - almost 2 miles) I've had 1 fill but now have little restriction and just keep my meals small. Am I eating too much? What is the average calories per day you guys are eating? give me some ideas of meals you eat? PLEASE HELP! I still think about eating too much. I am scheduled for a 2nd fill next week.

ok guys, I need help! I am holding steady at the same weight. I am mostly eating the right things and now walking 2 miles a day 4-5 days a week and going hiking on saturdays for at least 2 miles, sometimes more. I write down everything I eat and I'm going back over the last couple weeks. It seems I get on average of about 1000-1200 cal a day give or take (if I stay away from peanut m&ms!). I eat about 200 cal every couple of hours for about 5 mini-to-avg meals a day. My main focus is to get enough Protein because my biggest fear is my hair falling out. I do take a couple of meds that are on my doctor's list to cause weight gain so wondering if this is an issue also... I've had 1 fill but now have little restriction and just keep my meals small. Am I eating too much? What is the average calories per day you guys are eating? give me some ideas of meals you eat?

My BMI was 37 as well, and there is a three year weight list for people with higher BMI! (Varies from province to province). My doc says the Canadian medical assoc just came out with the position that WLS should be offered to individuals before they develop the co-morbidities that go along with obesity, if there is a history of weight gain, loss regain etc. I feel the same as you, I don't want to go down that path....good luck. My surgery is Monday, November 18.

Hi personally I was/ am a sneak eater binger. FOOD ADDICTION Food addiction manifests itself in the uncontrollable craving for excess food that follows the ingestion of refined carbohydrates, primarily sugar and flour substances that are quickly metabolized and turned into sugar in the bloodstream. Due to those uncontrollable cravings, a food addict's quality of life deteriorates when he or she eats sugar, flour or wheat. It can deteriorate physically, emotionally, socially and/or spiritually. If any of the following symptoms are familiar to you, you may be a food addict: Physical Symptoms of Food Addiction • Do you think you cannot control your intake of food, especially junk food or high sugar foods? • Have you tried different diets or weight loss programs, but none has worked permanently? • Have you found yourself vomiting, using laxatives, diuretics, or exercising a lot to avoid a weight gain after you have eaten a lot? Many food addicts are obese and have tried numerous methods for weight control (diets, drugs, surgery, etc.) yet nothing has created a permanent solution. Other food addicts have never been obese. Their physical weight has been controlled by extreme measures such as excessive exercise, purging through vomiting or laxatives (bulimia), or the severe and unhealthy limiting of food substances(anorexia). No matter which version of food addiction fits you, all of these symptoms become more severe with time and eventually lead to physical problems that can create an early and sometimes painful death. Emotional Symptoms of Food Addiction • Do you find yourself feeling depressed, hopeless, sad or ashamed about your eating or your weight? • Do you find yourself eating when you are upset or reward yourself with food when you do something good? • Have you ever noticed after eating sugar, flour, or wheat that you become more irritable? Food addicts notice that their emotions become more severe, intense, or unreasonable when eating the addictive substances. For many food addicts, emotional life may deteriorate into despair, depression, or thoughts of suicide. Social Symptoms of Food Addiction • Do you eat in private so no one will see you? • Do you avoid social interactions because you feel you do not look good enough or do not have the proper fitting clothes to wear? • Do you steal other people’s food? • Are you more interested in what food is served at social gatherings than looking forward to the warmth of being with the people attending? A food addict’s social life is affected by intense obsessive thinking about food. Making eye contact with people and taking an interest in developing friendships or intimate relationships become secondary to locating and eating addictive foods. Food addicts often hide or steal foods and eat in secret.

July 13th was 4 years for me. I have not been here in a long time and I miss it. Will be fun to see people I have not seen in a long time. Have been doing good keeping the weight off. On some meds that cause some weight gain so trying to battle that but need the med so seem to be managing it. How is everyone? Everyone in my support group has moved on the other operations and I am the only Band but it is working for me so I am keeping it. cheri

I plan on using Premier Protein for pre-op and post-op and doubling up on my regular Women's One a Day vitamins for pre-op, then switching to chewable Bariatric vitamins, Vitamin D, B-12 etc. post-op. I just ordered the Unjury sample pack. My nutritionist here locally tells me that Unjury passes taste tests in her office hands down to any other product. I am most interested in their chicken broth and their unflavored for a change of pace from the sweet stuff! On a side note, I found out that I had not gained weight like I thought! My scale at home isn't working! It was showing a 7 lb weight gain after 3 weeks of Zumba and it just didn't make sense because I FELT smaller. When I weighed with my nutritionist yesterday it showed me down 2 lbs from my last visit back in August. Good news!

I'm so glad to read that you're recovered and doing much better!! I started out really interesting in the band but the maintenance and fills wasn't for me because I'm paying everything out of pocket. Then I started reading complications and weight gain when issues. I found about the sleeve and researched the crap out of it and have made my decision. I'm traveling out of state for it and when I first spoke to my surgeon out there, he told me he won't even do the lap band to anyone not in his area due to complications that arise. My brothers gf has a band so I just hope and pray it continues to work for her!

Over the past week I have gained 3.2 lb, so I am freaking out; however, I have been working out twice a week with a trainer, and have lost 2.2% body fat over the past week as well. I did not realize miscle weighs that much more than fat.....is this normal to gain weight with weight training???