This is simply not correct information-nothing is removed during wls your gastric tract is altered. That is a very poor analogy also-gastric bypass doesn't bail anyone out of anything.

Things to think about.

If you truly ate food, it wouldn't matter how much you ate, it wouldn't make you fat or sick. On the contrary, food would make you healthy just like it does for every other species on this planet. If you don't fix the hormones that made you fat in the first place, it won't matter much to do the surgery because the problem is not the tissue, it's the hormones.

On the other hand, if what you eat makes you fat, it's important to not eat too much of it. Then if you choose to do the surgery, you'll still have to take care of the hormones to prevent the problem from returning.

Remember that when we cut out sugar, it's not because we want to eat less, it's because we want to fix the hormone insulin so that the fat tissue starts to work properly.

Thank-you for this post. I was trying to help Yana as I have had gastric bypass. This thread has only made me realize why I do not discuss this issue with just anyone.
Rox

Actually, some of these surgeries removes a part of the intestines that produces the enzymes used to digest carbs, fats and proteins are mostly not affected, but some micronutrients are (like vitamins). So you actually reduce your intake of carbs (into the bloodstream) without reducing your intake of carbs (into your mouth).

Personally, I think the complications are not worth it. I would rather suggest liposuction if surgery is your choice.

In January this year, I had an extended tummy tuck (with some liposuction), after losing 80lbs with dieting. I'm very satisfied so far and I will probably get some more lipo done in the near future.

Patrick

What surgery removes a part of the intestines?

I am EXTREMELY sorry for offending you...I definitely did not mean to do that. I do not judge anyone that has had it and obviously showed my ignorance about the procedure. I had watched a Discovery Health show on it and they did explain that some of the length of intestine was removed.

I don't think you should stop discussing your experience with the surgery...especially with ignorant run of the mouths like myself lol.

I still would not advocate a surgery where it is not absolutely imperative to sustaining life. I also think my bankruptcy analogy was taken the wrong way...what I mean was that having your stomach reduced in size can only be a tool, but like it was mentioned, the rules can be bent and if the underlying issues are not resolved, there ARE ways around the smaller stomach which will put you back to zero.

Again, I'm so super sorry I offended anyone.

I can't think of any wls off the top of my head that removes intestine (could be wrong). It is called gastric bypass because intestine is bypassed not removed.

It's easy to forget there are different types of surgeries - bypass, lap band, etc. I thought that the early forms of WLS did remove sections of the stomach? It seems to me that rendering part of the intestines or stomach incapable of absorbing food is very akin to actually removing it, though.

It is called gastric bypass for a reason-intestine is bypassed not removed and I am aware of the different surgeries but can't think of one where anything is removed. The stomach is not rendered incapable of absorbing food-it is made smaller and in some surgeries a portion of the small intestine bypassed.

Thank you so much for your kind responses and very helpful advices. I was NEVER considering a bypass ( this is way to scary to me). I was considering lap band as it seems like less invasive and actually reversible, but non the less a major surgery that alternates my stomach.
I see the light and I hear what you are saying. I am pretty much convinced I DONT want to do it.

By the way, i have a question for people who were talking about hormones: Why when i asked my doctor to check my hormones and see may be something is out of normal and this is the reason I am gaining weight she said that if my menses are regular it means everything is normal and only checked me for thyroid.

What hormones are you guys talking about?


I extensively THANK all of you for sharing with me your experiences, life stories, and your feelings. I feel very accepted and cared about.

Please let the suggestions flow. I love every single one of them

You are right. There are none currently in use. But the effect of the bypass is the same as what I described. They bypass a part of the intestines that contains a high density of the cells that produces the enzymes to digest carbs.

Patrick

Martin was not talking about hormones like Thyroid (that your doc probably checked), he was talking about hormones like insulin. And not in the sense that you could be diabetic, but in the sense that anything that promotes insulin secretion is what makes us fat. And by real food, he means animal fats and proteins.

I do not agree with Martin on this by the way. And since we are in the war zone, I will also say that IMHO carbs are not evil by themselves and that any sustained caloric surplus results in the diseases of civilization. But that is a discussion for another thread.

Patrick

This isn't true-I've been walking this walk for 10 years and you malabsorb fat not carbs.

We are talking about the hormones of hunger and feeding and fuel, like insulin mainly but also cortisol and some others. Your doc probably thought you were talking about female reproductive hormones or thyroid - and if your doc is like 99% of the GP docs we see, probably just does not think to talk about the the hunger and feeding hormones like insulin and so on for weight loss.

The low carb books all explain this. I would recommend one of the books. I first read Protein Power, myself.

Here's an online article to get you started - Mark Sisson talking about insulin (about diabetes but it's a good start)

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/

Also, the hormones are involved in the hungry horrors from wheat and dairy. This is how I think of it for me, who is sensitive to "white powder" foods like grains and sugar, and dairy. I am exaggering a little - but this is how it goes for me:

1. I eat grains, sugars, or milk.
2. My system senses danger from the bad chemicals (gluten from the flour and casein from the milk).
3. My body activates the fight-flight-FEED hormones for the danger, and simultaneously shoots out endorphin to cover the pain that can come with fight-flight
4. Fight-flight-feed is sugar burning. So now I am burning through glucose like crazy. (insulin and cortisol high)

Now comes the crash:

5. Time passes and effect of the white flour and dairy fades.
6. I get a rebound low from the endorphins (the crash after the high). This feels antsy, low, and can't-stop-eating.
7. I am glucose depleted and need energy NOW - faster than my stored fat can deliver.
8. I crave fast carbs both for the fast energy and to ease the endorphin crash.
9. Back to step 1. Repeat forever.

Now imagine adding therapy to this. Therapy usually talks forever how sad and problematic my mood is at step 8 because I am hungry, antsy, depressed and can't stop.
But when I addressed the behavior at step 1 - what I eat - then step 8 doesn't even happen.

Well personally I can see that some of the several WLS (weight loss surgeries) are are more drastic than others, but in the end, every one of them involve:

1. Someone cutting into you
2. Someone messing with how your body naturally operates, to make it operate quite differently
3. Dealing with the consequences of both of the above

So I think all the points on the thread end up being accurate in at least some context.

Regarding hormones, I recently grabbed a quote of Dr. Kurt Harris's blog that I thought was a very simplified, succinct explanation of one aspect of the hormonal situation (my bolding):



The point to note as a link off that bolded part, is that the body will *drive you to eat more calories* under that circumstance. Humans are part of the animal kingdom, this is fundamental, willpower can temporarily hold something in abeyance but not for too long when it's survival drives.

What some are suggesting is that without correcting the hormonal cycle described above--where you get too much insulin and at best, don't eat more, but your metabolic rate drops (your food calories 'store' instead of being given you for energy, so you get fatter and you get more lethargic), at worst, you do eat more, and this is a spiral upward of that situation (ask me how I know, sigh)--then it's likely to be an issue no matter what you do with 'interventions in absorption/digestion/etc.'.

And if you work on correcting that hormonal cycle, first and foremost by eating 'real food' (and ideally, avoiding food you may have issues with, such as gluten grains and dairy), then a good deal of weight is going to come off naturally, without the manual, surgical intervention being necessary.


The above info is a part of what is explained at great dense length detail by Gary Taubes in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. If you don't like big dense tomes, he has a more user-friendly version of it coming out in December you can preorder:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fa.../dp/0307272702/

In the end, you see with this cycle, it isn't that people 'are getting fat because they're eating too much' quite so much as it is that they are 'eating so much BECAUSE they are getting fat!' -- because the body's taking that food, storing it, and then the high insulin prevents it being released for energy. So (a) they're lethargic, and (b) they're driven to go eat because their body needs energy.

Hope that helps,
PJ