Realistic Goals and Personal Responsibility
One more (I won't say "one LAST") view on this topic:
Having WLS can be looked at like getting into college. There is a weeding out process to determine which people are the most likely to be able to benefit from the opportunity, because it is a scarce commodity, and there is a societal benefit in limiting access to only those who are likely to benefit from it.
After weeding out the inappropriate candidates (those who haven't "earned" the right to get it, who will be simply unable to benefit, etc.), you start out with an unequal class of people who have varying skills, backgrounds, emotional and medical conditions, etc. There are always a few of "the best and the brightest" -- you know they will do well, and they would have to go out of their way to fail (and a few of them always will). There are always some who at the outset seem to clearly be the ones who will be voted "most likely to fail" but who deserve a chance to try. It's not 100% for either group, but usually 80% predictable.
And then there is the rest. You can predict the overall outcome for this group -- a bell curve -- but you are not going to be able to predict with accuracy which individual is going to end up where on that curve. Because how they do is going to boils down to the choices they are going to make, and each of them has the opportunity to make choices that will push them to one side or the other of the curve.
Those poor souls in the bottom 10%, most of whom it can safely be predicted will fail, nevertheless on an individual basis CAN succeed. We know that. We know it will be WAAY harder on them to succeed than on the rest of the group (and especially not the top 10%), but they CAN do it -- they can sacrifice, work harder than anyone else, be diligent, etc. It's not fair (in the sense of life isn't fair), but it is what it is. Most people don't have the tenacity, willpower or stick-to-it-iveness that is required to succeed when you already have two strikes against you, but it is not impossible, especially if they know their weaknesses in advance and are prepared to deal with them.
Similarly, the remaining 80% will have more of a one-on-one relationship between effort in, result out, only it won't likely be quite as hard of an effort required. Most of them will be the sort that screw up from time to time (after all, we are all human), but will act on their conscience most of the time. Some will be addicts of some sort, or ADD, who will find it harder than average to stick to their program, and will have to depend more on their willpower and strength of character to do the right thing. Some will be low achievers, satisfied with just not failing and calling a modest exchange of effort vs. reasonable non-failing result "good enough," even if sub-optimal. Some, operating under a combination of inherent adversities, will work their asses off just to not fail. The ones with the most natural gifts will have a subset bell curve around the high end of achievement, which will substantially overlap with a subset bell curve comprising those who enter the process with numerous deficits around the lower side of achievement.
It isn't fair. But it is what it is. If you go into the process knowing what your weaknesses and deficiencies are, you can have both reasonable expectations, and proactively try to avoid the pitfalls. If you want to really be a high achiever, and you know you have one or two strikes against you at the beginning, you know you will have to work much harder than the average person just to do averagely, and ten times harder to outperform. Doesn't mean you have to be or are a failure if you don't outperform, but having realistic expectations can make the experience easier and less miserable.
In my job, we do evaluations of whether we have patent issues at various stages of a project. For early stage evaluations, we don't want or need a full blown analysis, because those are really really expensive, time consuming and unnecessarily detailed. If a full blown detailed analysis can be done in 100 hours by an outside law firm, for $50K, what we know from experience is that we can do it ourselves and find 85% of the possible issues in 20 hours. Getting that last 15% of the picture will take the vast majority of the time. But since most of our early stage projects never go all the way, there is no point investing that much time or effort in the early stage. We get an 85% result from a 20% time, effort and money investment to be the right level for what we need. The other 15% is just not worth the effort - that is our cost-benefit analysis.
I am willing to TiVo my wheat carbs (eat them late in the day). I am not willing to forego them altogether, although I do find that by deferring when I eat them, I necessarily eat less of them. For me, that is all the effort I can bring myself to expend in controlling my carbs, and FOR ME, it is sufficient to keep my weight where it is, with an occasional drop of a pound or two. My cost-benefit analysis says THIS is the optimum for me.
What if I suddenly find that by doing exactly what I am doing (eating what I want, except just TiVoing my wheat carbs), I am now gaining weight? I will have two choices. I will accept whatever weight I end up at by continuing to put in the amount of effort I am expending now, which meets my definition of "not on a diet" -- or I will adejust my intake and/or increase my exercise. I can't tell you right now what I would chose if that happens. But it will be a choice I would have to make.
Every one of us has a cost-benefit analysis to make of the effort required for our ownselves to achieve a particular level of success. I am quite happy that what feels like a 20% effort (now that I'm down to 170 and out nearly 6 years) keeps me at an 85% result. For me, that was my luck of the draw. I am utterly unwilling to put in the extra commitment and effort that would be required for me to gain even a PART of the last 15% of success. If the mathematics of this equation ever changes for me in the future (I become more sedentary because of arthritis; I become a better absorber, e.g.), I will have to rethink my math. Maybe I will be willing to settle for a 50% result for the same 20% effort. Maybe I will be able to motivate myself to a 40% effort if I can maintain a 75% result. I can't say.
What do you think?
Having WLS can be looked at like getting into college. There is a weeding out process to determine which people are the most likely to be able to benefit from the opportunity, because it is a scarce commodity, and there is a societal benefit in limiting access to only those who are likely to benefit from it.
After weeding out the inappropriate candidates (those who haven't "earned" the right to get it, who will be simply unable to benefit, etc.), you start out with an unequal class of people who have varying skills, backgrounds, emotional and medical conditions, etc. There are always a few of "the best and the brightest" -- you know they will do well, and they would have to go out of their way to fail (and a few of them always will). There are always some who at the outset seem to clearly be the ones who will be voted "most likely to fail" but who deserve a chance to try. It's not 100% for either group, but usually 80% predictable.
And then there is the rest. You can predict the overall outcome for this group -- a bell curve -- but you are not going to be able to predict with accuracy which individual is going to end up where on that curve. Because how they do is going to boils down to the choices they are going to make, and each of them has the opportunity to make choices that will push them to one side or the other of the curve.
Those poor souls in the bottom 10%, most of whom it can safely be predicted will fail, nevertheless on an individual basis CAN succeed. We know that. We know it will be WAAY harder on them to succeed than on the rest of the group (and especially not the top 10%), but they CAN do it -- they can sacrifice, work harder than anyone else, be diligent, etc. It's not fair (in the sense of life isn't fair), but it is what it is. Most people don't have the tenacity, willpower or stick-to-it-iveness that is required to succeed when you already have two strikes against you, but it is not impossible, especially if they know their weaknesses in advance and are prepared to deal with them.
Similarly, the remaining 80% will have more of a one-on-one relationship between effort in, result out, only it won't likely be quite as hard of an effort required. Most of them will be the sort that screw up from time to time (after all, we are all human), but will act on their conscience most of the time. Some will be addicts of some sort, or ADD, who will find it harder than average to stick to their program, and will have to depend more on their willpower and strength of character to do the right thing. Some will be low achievers, satisfied with just not failing and calling a modest exchange of effort vs. reasonable non-failing result "good enough," even if sub-optimal. Some, operating under a combination of inherent adversities, will work their asses off just to not fail. The ones with the most natural gifts will have a subset bell curve around the high end of achievement, which will substantially overlap with a subset bell curve comprising those who enter the process with numerous deficits around the lower side of achievement.
It isn't fair. But it is what it is. If you go into the process knowing what your weaknesses and deficiencies are, you can have both reasonable expectations, and proactively try to avoid the pitfalls. If you want to really be a high achiever, and you know you have one or two strikes against you at the beginning, you know you will have to work much harder than the average person just to do averagely, and ten times harder to outperform. Doesn't mean you have to be or are a failure if you don't outperform, but having realistic expectations can make the experience easier and less miserable.
In my job, we do evaluations of whether we have patent issues at various stages of a project. For early stage evaluations, we don't want or need a full blown analysis, because those are really really expensive, time consuming and unnecessarily detailed. If a full blown detailed analysis can be done in 100 hours by an outside law firm, for $50K, what we know from experience is that we can do it ourselves and find 85% of the possible issues in 20 hours. Getting that last 15% of the picture will take the vast majority of the time. But since most of our early stage projects never go all the way, there is no point investing that much time or effort in the early stage. We get an 85% result from a 20% time, effort and money investment to be the right level for what we need. The other 15% is just not worth the effort - that is our cost-benefit analysis.
I am willing to TiVo my wheat carbs (eat them late in the day). I am not willing to forego them altogether, although I do find that by deferring when I eat them, I necessarily eat less of them. For me, that is all the effort I can bring myself to expend in controlling my carbs, and FOR ME, it is sufficient to keep my weight where it is, with an occasional drop of a pound or two. My cost-benefit analysis says THIS is the optimum for me.
What if I suddenly find that by doing exactly what I am doing (eating what I want, except just TiVoing my wheat carbs), I am now gaining weight? I will have two choices. I will accept whatever weight I end up at by continuing to put in the amount of effort I am expending now, which meets my definition of "not on a diet" -- or I will adejust my intake and/or increase my exercise. I can't tell you right now what I would chose if that happens. But it will be a choice I would have to make.
Every one of us has a cost-benefit analysis to make of the effort required for our ownselves to achieve a particular level of success. I am quite happy that what feels like a 20% effort (now that I'm down to 170 and out nearly 6 years) keeps me at an 85% result. For me, that was my luck of the draw. I am utterly unwilling to put in the extra commitment and effort that would be required for me to gain even a PART of the last 15% of success. If the mathematics of this equation ever changes for me in the future (I become more sedentary because of arthritis; I become a better absorber, e.g.), I will have to rethink my math. Maybe I will be willing to settle for a 50% result for the same 20% effort. Maybe I will be able to motivate myself to a 40% effort if I can maintain a 75% result. I can't say.
What do you think?
Using the analogy of the cost/benefit analysis is right on target for me. It is NOT WORTH it to me to give up my desserts. Period. I don't do them often enough to put them entirely off my plate for the rest of my life. Oftentimes I will plan to have a certain dessert but then whoops! I eat too much protein and fill myself up. Oh well. Maybe I'll have the dessert tomorrow. I did not achieve 100% EWL before getting myself pregnant. I was probably at about 85%. but you know what? I didn't care. I was aiming to get back to the size that I felt normal at - which happens to be a size 14/16. And since my hipbones protrude at that size, it's probably a good thing that I didn't go smaller. Plastics would probably take off enough inches around my waist to get me into a size 12 but that would be IT for me. I'm a big-boned girl and look better with a little bit of meat on me. I prefer it that way.
Could I lose lower? Certainly! But I would have to expend far more effort than I had been and I just didn't want to go there. Right now, all bets are off because I'm eating to sustain another two life forms here, but when they are no longer a concern, I will have to expend a bit more effort to get myself back into my normal habits of eating, but then once I do, I'll be back to the same old lackadaisical habits I have always had, and maintaining my weight at around 185 which is perfect for me.
It's a trade off. Everything in life is a trade off. Iffen you don't realize that, I figure you're more than a bit touched in the head.
Could I lose lower? Certainly! But I would have to expend far more effort than I had been and I just didn't want to go there. Right now, all bets are off because I'm eating to sustain another two life forms here, but when they are no longer a concern, I will have to expend a bit more effort to get myself back into my normal habits of eating, but then once I do, I'll be back to the same old lackadaisical habits I have always had, and maintaining my weight at around 185 which is perfect for me.
It's a trade off. Everything in life is a trade off. Iffen you don't realize that, I figure you're more than a bit touched in the head.
~ Sarah P. 
Ask me about pregnancy after the Duodenal Switch!
They're here! My surro-sons were born July 21, 2009. Welcome to the world, Benjamin and Daniel. We love you very much!
Very interesting thread.
I'd still consider myself a bit of a newbie, and I think the old-timers are very supportive when people come on to the board and want to learn about the DS, but can get snarky when people are obviously making "bad" choices and not wanting to own it up.
My opinion is that there is less need to "diet/exercise" with the DS than with other surgeries, but we still can't be completely solvent. Carbs and the white stuff will always be evil, whether a person is naturally thin or has had WLS.
I'd still consider myself a bit of a newbie, and I think the old-timers are very supportive when people come on to the board and want to learn about the DS, but can get snarky when people are obviously making "bad" choices and not wanting to own it up.
My opinion is that there is less need to "diet/exercise" with the DS than with other surgeries, but we still can't be completely solvent. Carbs and the white stuff will always be evil, whether a person is naturally thin or has had WLS.
Erika - DS in 2008 - SW 162, LW 131 (2009), CW 160
Thanks for this, Diana.
I agree, though I ended up being on an opposite side of the spectrum than you.
Being thin is more important to me than not dieting (at least right now). So, I don't mind skipping dessert or eating green beans instead of french fries to stay in my skinny jeans. But I am by no means eating cookies everyday...or even every week. Or month. I keep tighter control on my diet and carbs than most on this forum, and it pays off in ways that I appreciate.
I agree, though I ended up being on an opposite side of the spectrum than you.
Being thin is more important to me than not dieting (at least right now). So, I don't mind skipping dessert or eating green beans instead of french fries to stay in my skinny jeans. But I am by no means eating cookies everyday...or even every week. Or month. I keep tighter control on my diet and carbs than most on this forum, and it pays off in ways that I appreciate.
5'9.5" | HW: 368 | SW: 353 | CW: 155 +/- 5 lbs | Angel to 
Nothing wrong with that! That of course was the gist of my message.
Personally, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than live like you describe -- I eat at least one dessert almost every night, sometimes more than one. I eat a starchy vegetable, usually Yukon gold potatoes drenched in butter, pretty much every night. The trade-off between a BMI of 28 and 25, much less 22, is so not worth dieting to me. And what you describe sounds like dieting -- TO ME. But to you, it is worth it. CHOICES. That's what I'm talkimg about.
Congratulations on finding a path that works for you! I am in awe of your willpower, but not the least bit envious!
Personally, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than live like you describe -- I eat at least one dessert almost every night, sometimes more than one. I eat a starchy vegetable, usually Yukon gold potatoes drenched in butter, pretty much every night. The trade-off between a BMI of 28 and 25, much less 22, is so not worth dieting to me. And what you describe sounds like dieting -- TO ME. But to you, it is worth it. CHOICES. That's what I'm talkimg about.
Congratulations on finding a path that works for you! I am in awe of your willpower, but not the least bit envious!
TANSTAAFL.* It's the univeral law. Some people get it easier than others, but who said life is fair?
I agree, no one said life would be fair, if they do, they're a liar. It's not fair, but it's worth it and from my experience the more you put into life, the more you get out of life. GIve it all you got, you only have the one.
Kerry
I agree, no one said life would be fair, if they do, they're a liar. It's not fair, but it's worth it and from my experience the more you put into life, the more you get out of life. GIve it all you got, you only have the one.
Kerry
Thanks Diana! I have always gotten so much out of your posts and your tough love. I greatly appreciate all the incredible energy and time you put into paying it forward for us here. There are lots of us here who have been able to "talk" ourselves into believing anything - hence our years of incredibly unhealthy behaviors. Addicts often need tough love. 
Nancy Remember what you deserve. Be good to you. Do good to you.
5'11" HW 419 / SW 382 / CW 205 / GW 180
5'11" HW 419 / SW 382 / CW 205 / GW 180
Most Active
Recent Topics
