I lost faster than Gastric Bypass

[BansterNYC 0]

I have lost over 70% of my excess weight, and I lost it in 9 months. I didn't really realize it was over 70% until my surgeon calculated it. He also told me that exceeded the usual pace of gastric bypass patients (WOW!), and far exceeded the usual pace of lap-banders.

I also started at a "Low BMI" of 36 and was told I would lose slower than bypass and bandsters with much more to lose. Maybe this motivated me to prove the statistics wrong.

This is all interesting to me. I am not sure why I lost faster than others. I have some ideas.

Has anyone else been told this? Why do you think you lost fast? Or are not losing fast? Do you know why some lose faster than others?

[mikesforevergirl 0]

The answer to me seems pretty simple. With your BMI so low it is clear you do not suffer from the blatant metabolic challenges that MOST bypass and lapband patients suffer from. Consequently you would see far better results with the modifications you made. Chances are you don't battle constant hunger despite a low carb diet like we all do and your lower BMI likely allows you to begin exercising at a far greater intensity than what larger folks can.

Not sure why a BMI of 36 warranted the risks or cost of the surgery, really. Just my take! But good job!

[silvers320 12]

I was actually told the same thing yesterday. I started at a BMI of 41 and as of yesterday I am at 32, after a little over 3 months. I point it to 3 things:

1. I make smarter food choices then I ever did before. That doesn't mean I dont have the occasional cookie - but not a 1/2 box like it used to be.

2. There is no way I can eat like I used too. I used to be a one huge meal a day kinda of guy. Now I eat 3 small meal and maybe a snack. I used to laugh when a serving size was 6 crackers - now I eat 6 crackers and I am happy as a clam.

3. Actually seeing the results, has motivated me to work out more then I would have in the past. Granted I still need to work on this one.

I care less about the speed at which its coming off and more that its coming off for good and being replaced with better habits.

[BansterNYC 0]

Oh - I forgot to mention that I don't do any cardio, well not anymore. I decided to do the lap-band after running 3 marathons with no weight loss! I exercise now, but it's Pilates 4x per week. It helps sculpt my muscles, but it's not a vigorous workout -- I don't even sweat.

I decided to have the surgery at this point in my life being just under 30 and wanting to have children in the next few years. My research revealed, and was later confirmed, that the band yields the best results if you wait at least 2 years (and 3 is better) before getting pregnant. I did not want to get even fatter, have a few kids, and a decade later regret that I didn't get the lap-band earlier. My exercise (marathon running) didn't help lower my weight either, it just made me more hungry. With all of that, plus some other factors, I went for the lap-band surgery.

I am not trying to brag or anything, but if I can figure out why my weight loss was faster and greater than gastric bypass in the first year -- then maybe I can hold on to that to keep the weight off. This whole time I never thought I lost faster at all. Thought I was pretty normal, lost weight at a normal lap-band pace.

I am happy with my choice to get the lap-band. So is it better to get the band when your younger (under 30)? Or with a lower BMI (lower than 40)? Will it yield faster weight loss?

[Loseweightin08 0]

Congrats on your sucess! I think it great that you get a hold of your weight now. I wish I had done it 10 years ago! I agree with Silvers a lot....my choices are so much better. I don't feel like I have to have that donut or cake like I used to. I also am satisfied with smaller portions and exercise, although I will never love it, I am not hating it:)

Keep up the great work!

[Garth5555 0]

Not sure why a BMI of 36 warranted the risks or cost of the surgery, really. Just my take! But good job!

Wow, sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me, but I would like to weigh in here.

First off, I had a 36-37 BMI and I was banded on 11-4. The reason I had LBS was because I have severe sleep apnea. About 5 years ago I had surgery to remove my uvula (SP?) to help my SA. As I put on more weight, my sleep apnea got worse. :thumbup:

Secondly, that is why they have a base line of 35 BMI with a co-morbidity. Just because someone doesn't have a BMI of 40+ should not excluded them from a surgery that will help extend the life or help them function more effectively.

Once again, to throw out a comment like you made is very easy to interpret as sour grapes. :frown:

G

[Jachut 487]

The answer to me seems pretty simple. With your BMI so low it is clear you do not suffer from the blatant metabolic challenges that MOST bypass and lapband patients suffer from. Consequently you would see far better results with the modifications you made. Chances are you don't battle constant hunger despite a low carb diet like we all do and your lower BMI likely allows you to begin exercising at a far greater intensity than what larger folks can.

Not sure why a BMI of 36 warranted the risks or cost of the surgery, really. Just my take! But good job!

I think that's true to a degree - I was a BMI of 36 and while I didnt lose fast (2 years to lose 100lb) I lost 120% of my excess weight. I really cant identify with the constant hunger issue that others seem to have and I was able to start runnning three months after surgery.

But with all due respect, I really hate that "I'm fatter than you so I deserve surgery more" mentality. A BMI of 36 is seriously obese. It poses increased health risks. Statistically one is JUST as unlikely to be successful at losing weight and keeping it off than heavier patients. What, should we wait till we're REALLY fat to do something about it? Do we have to suffer more before we deserve the surgery?

In fact, here in Australia they band from a BMI of 30 and are formulating an opinion that banding works better for the lower BMI patients - maybe since its a surgery that requires so much input and work from the patient - or maybe just because the less fat has been on your body for the less time, the easier it seems to be to get rid of it for good.

I just really dont understand why you felt the need to say that?

[Garth5555 0]

Well put Jacqui, I agree with you 100%.

G

[mikesforevergirl 0]

I suppose just as I don't understand being in your shoes, those in your position do not understand the intense struggles of those in the shoes of those of us with BMI's of 50+, removed thyroids, etc.

Certainly I don't begrudge anyone their successes or hard work nor do I minimize health issues.

I think alot is lost in "tone" and "intent" in forums which is why I tend not to post.

The initial post was full of questions. . .I just threw out some answers and posed some of my own opinions. NEVER did I imply anyone deserved surgery more than someone else. Only wondering why someone would take the risk of surgery when their health was good enough to run marathons!

I think most folks on here share the same struggles and fears at the core.

I am humble enough not to take offense at the "sour grapes" comment.

The quote by NYCBandster "I am not trying to brag or anything, but if I can figure out why my weight loss was faster and greater than gastric bypass in the first year" does leave me surprised. . . . because again, I just don't think very many people in good enough shape to run Marathons with BMI's of 36 have had a Gastric Bypass and so comparing your results to theirs or being shocked your body responded so much more favorably would be quite obvious. Muscle to fat ratio being one huge factor. Your resting metabolic rate would be far better than bypass patients.

I say keep that muscle and keep on doing what you are doing and you should stay successful!

I considered surgery a very "weighty" matter. . (no pun intended, lol) as the thought of being put to sleep is not comforting to me! I guess I should not assume that others feel the same.

Good Luck all. . . .you probably won't see me post alot more. Now I know why so many folks choose to just lurk and that it unfortunate, it robs many of us of their experiences.

[Candle 11]

I was a steady loser and lost my weight pretty quickly - I'm not questioning it :cool:

I lost 100lb in 7 months and got to my original goal by month 10. (-120lbs). I've been losing about 2-3lbs per month since then.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

I started exercising early and really stuck to a good eating plan. I also think eating 4-5 small meals through out the day and getting my B12 levels to a normal range really jump started my metabolism. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Congrats on your loss!<o:p></o:p>

[dietpeach 0]

Congratulations on your success. You are right to feel proud of making progress towards better health. I wish I'd been banded at a BMI of 36!

Your weight loss is faster as a percentage because a percentage is a number which shows how much you lost compared to how much you needed to lose. You only needed to lose 60 pounds. 70% of that is 42 pounds. If another woman loses the same exact 42 pounds as you but has 150 pounds to lose, well, 42 pounds is only 28% of her excess weight. Pound for pound you've both lost the same, but percentage-wise you've lost two and a half times as much. Understand?

To put it another way, 9 months is 40 weeks, and you lost about 42 pounds (70%) in that time. So you've lost just over a pound a week. Losing 1-2 pounds a week is what a bandster is supposed to do, so you're right on target.

This is not at all to diminish your accomplishment, but rather to put it in perspective for all the others reading your post who might feel disheartened at their own progress. I myself have not been banded yet - I hope I can also lose 70% in 9 months, especially since I have a lot to lose.

Keep up the good work!

Edited November 16, 2008 by dietpeach