Re: life expectancy after WLS (sorry, here's the link that wo...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/21/2002 6:39:47 AM Central Daylight Time,

dbandas@... writes:

> http://gastricbypass.netfirms.com/wlsstats.htm

>

This article really made me angry. I went to the home page and you can see

that the entire premise is that any WLS is practically evil in the author's

mind.

Besides that, most of us would never have lived 20 yrs. if we had not had the

surgery. The individual statistics are biaised, skewed, and undocumented.

(For one, NATURALLY death rate during WLS is higher than it is for other

surgeries because of the many co-morbidities many of us have.) I don't have

time to detail all of them, but knowing this group, some of you with much

more expertise will be able to shoot this webpage down with a squirt gun.

Dianne B.

[Guest guest]

I think most of the issues about this site have been tackled, but I want to

deal with people " just " keeping off half of their excess weight.

Let's say you're ideal weight is 150 pounds and you now weigh 350 pounds.

You have the surgery, and your weight stabilizes at 250 pounds. OK, it's not

perfect. You're still technically " fat " however....

Your chances of getting insulin resistant diabetes have been radically

reduced, or if you do get it you're likely to get it in later life. If you

do get diabetes, you're less likely to need an amputation.

You'll be at lower risk for subsequent surgeries, because obesity is a big

risk factor in surgery.

You also will be small enough that you can probably engage in some kind of

moderate exercise (like walking or swimming) which can radically improve your

health.

To summarize, doing a little better in managing your weight or being more

active, can make you much, much healthier in the long run.

Of course, to really be accurate, you'd need to compare being 250 pounds and

staying there, with gradually gaining more and more weight. That's where

most of us were. At 500 pounds, I couldn't do anything for myself. I was

putting on about 20 pounds a year. I would have 600 pounds by the time I was

40.

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more! And Sue Widemark is an obese woman that seems hurt

because she can't have weight loss surgery or something like that. Her

" information and prevention " cause is biased and unfactual. I tried to have

an intelligent exchange with the woman but there was no sign of intelligent

life . . .the lights are on but no one's home . . .has selective hearing or

reading as the case may be!

I am sorry I had to have WLS to learn what I have and change my

behavior/attitude towards food, but I have no regrets. I love my new

healthier body and am vigilant about nutrition and staying on top of

malnutrition. Sue W be damned!

) Vicki

In a message dated 8/21/2002 6:37:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dbandas@... writes:

> IMHO, if this article were actually factual and not written by someone with

> a " vendetta, "

>

> 1. I'd rather have the twenty happy, healthy and hot years I'm having now

> rather than the slow death I was having before.

>

> 2. None of us get out of here alive.

>

> 3. What is the life expectancy of someone who does not have the surgery?

>

> We are indeed lucky (*most* of the time ) to have each other to tweak

> our

> nutrional regimes to the fullest.

>

> Plus, the author suggests the lap-band is the first safe procedure. I'm

> not

> knocking the procedure, but IT'S RELATIVELY BRAND-NEW! The writer leads us

> down this path of innuendo, then throws a zinger like that in. Where's the

> study comparing the procedures?

>

> Like I always say, just as seriously as I am capable of, I would rather

> have

> had this surgery than win a $100 million lottery. Hands down. Any day,

> even when the VISA bill comes in!

>

> in Austin

> RNY April 1998

>

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more! And Sue Widemark is an obese woman that seems hurt

because she can't have weight loss surgery or something like that. Her

" information and prevention " cause is biased and unfactual. I tried to have

an intelligent exchange with the woman but there was no sign of intelligent

life . . .the lights are on but no one's home . . .has selective hearing or

reading as the case may be!

I am sorry I had to have WLS to learn what I have and change my

behavior/attitude towards food, but I have no regrets. I love my new

healthier body and am vigilant about nutrition and staying on top of

malnutrition. Sue W be damned!

) Vicki

In a message dated 8/21/2002 6:37:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dbandas@... writes:

> IMHO, if this article were actually factual and not written by someone with

> a " vendetta, "

>

> 1. I'd rather have the twenty happy, healthy and hot years I'm having now

> rather than the slow death I was having before.

>

> 2. None of us get out of here alive.

>

> 3. What is the life expectancy of someone who does not have the surgery?

>

> We are indeed lucky (*most* of the time ) to have each other to tweak

> our

> nutrional regimes to the fullest.

>

> Plus, the author suggests the lap-band is the first safe procedure. I'm

> not

> knocking the procedure, but IT'S RELATIVELY BRAND-NEW! The writer leads us

> down this path of innuendo, then throws a zinger like that in. Where's the

> study comparing the procedures?

>

> Like I always say, just as seriously as I am capable of, I would rather

> have

> had this surgery than win a $100 million lottery. Hands down. Any day,

> even when the VISA bill comes in!

>

> in Austin

> RNY April 1998

>

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more! And Sue Widemark is an obese woman that seems hurt

because she can't have weight loss surgery or something like that. Her

" information and prevention " cause is biased and unfactual. I tried to have

an intelligent exchange with the woman but there was no sign of intelligent

life . . .the lights are on but no one's home . . .has selective hearing or

reading as the case may be!

I am sorry I had to have WLS to learn what I have and change my

behavior/attitude towards food, but I have no regrets. I love my new

healthier body and am vigilant about nutrition and staying on top of

malnutrition. Sue W be damned!

) Vicki

In a message dated 8/21/2002 6:37:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dbandas@... writes:

> IMHO, if this article were actually factual and not written by someone with

> a " vendetta, "

>

> 1. I'd rather have the twenty happy, healthy and hot years I'm having now

> rather than the slow death I was having before.

>

> 2. None of us get out of here alive.

>

> 3. What is the life expectancy of someone who does not have the surgery?

>

> We are indeed lucky (*most* of the time ) to have each other to tweak

> our

> nutrional regimes to the fullest.

>

> Plus, the author suggests the lap-band is the first safe procedure. I'm

> not

> knocking the procedure, but IT'S RELATIVELY BRAND-NEW! The writer leads us

> down this path of innuendo, then throws a zinger like that in. Where's the

> study comparing the procedures?

>

> Like I always say, just as seriously as I am capable of, I would rather

> have

> had this surgery than win a $100 million lottery. Hands down. Any day,

> even when the VISA bill comes in!

>

> in Austin

> RNY April 1998

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/21/2002 12:05:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,

apoplexy@... writes:

> Good ol' Sue Widemark!

>

how about leaving out the good and capitalizing the OLD?

) Devils advocate . . .

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/21/2002 12:05:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,

apoplexy@... writes:

> Good ol' Sue Widemark!

>

how about leaving out the good and capitalizing the OLD?

) Devils advocate . . .

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/21/2002 12:05:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,

apoplexy@... writes:

> Good ol' Sue Widemark!

>

how about leaving out the good and capitalizing the OLD?

) Devils advocate . . .