You all know me...when one of you gets me to thinking, I can't be stopped from posting about it!

So the People magazine post. It got me to thinking. How do you, personally, prefer people/the media refer to weight loss that happens after WLS vs. weight loss that is achieved through diet and exercise alone?

I personally don't mind it when magazines point out that a person did not have WLS and achieved results. I think they've done a very hard thing. The decks are stacked overwhelmingly against most obese people - both socially, culturally and biologically. And to be able to overome all that and lose great amounts of weight is, to me, a thing to be proud of.

And yes, sometimes articles about traditional weight loss do bash WLS. But most of the time the only thing I see happening is that media will make the distinction that a person didn't have surgery. They don't say it's better or worse to have surgery. They don't say that surgery is the easy way out or cheating. Rather, what I see a lot of (can't say this is the case with the People article because I've not read it) it is US who infuse that meaning into those articles and call it "implication."

This is not to say the suggestion isn't there, but if it doesn't say it or directly allude to it, we really don't know, do we?

Which all leads me back to my original question. If the current forms of differentiating between the two types of weight loss is unacceptable, what would we prefer people/the media to say?

I dont know what I would prefer them to say. I know years ago one of the teachers at my daughters school was in People mag because she lost over 100lbs. That was the first time I even paid attention to People magazine and the issues they do about weight loss. At the time I was not even thinking about WLS. It was not on my mind in the least but I do remember  thinking that based on the article they made it seem like WLS was a bad thing or was cheating. I also felt like whenever WLS was mentioned in the media it seemed to me that it was not presented in the best light. But I didnt care or think about it at the time because WLS was not on my mind as an option for me.

We all know the statistic.
Some of us lost the weight, gained it back, last again. and so one.

I probably was on every diet what was invented.   Well. not HGC...
But every time - when you stop the diet or you get injured and have to stop exercise like a mad person - the weight came back with some extra fat. 

Most of us who decided to get WLS - did that as a last resort.  I knew I had sweet tooth and was hoping that I would dump and that will prevent from going back to old habits.  I got what I wished for and then some.   For me the surgery works because i get "severely punished" when I try to get off the program.  and since I hate pain more than I love some food -  I got conditioned to do the right things.  At least most of the time. 

So as much as I am *****ing about RNY and RH - and pain and dumping,a and other side effects - the horrible side effects is what keeps me on my toes.   

what would I prefer them to say - is to promise to follow up on people who lost weight the "hard way" . 2-3 years? 
how about article:
where are they now? and if they maintain - how do they do that? what percentage of them can maintain? or show a statistic at the bottom of the article that shows how many people can maintain and how much weight loss as the times goes by.

That seems fair enough. I don’t know that WLS patients years later would fare that much better from what I’ve seen (especially what I saw at the last OH conference I attended. There was some major regain issues going on up in there). I think we say to ourselves, “yeah they dieted but they probably gained it all back…" Well…we have the ability (and many documented instances) of doing the same.

 

I guess part of this is the fact that I write/edit so I have to pay attention to the literal meaning of words and how we infuse meaning in to them. Most stories I see on WLS these days trip over themselves to emphasize that it takes more than the surgery. I was just reading one in the eye doctor when I was taking my daughter of two best friends who both had RNY. A whole page of the story was devoted to the kinds of mental changes they had to make in order to adjust and be successful.

 

I think in general, I’d love to also see more long-term weight loss surgery stories out there too. Both people *****gained and people who didn’t. That way we can start to get a holistic picture. That we, like any other demographic, have both long-term successes and long-term challenges.

 

So far as the regular weight loss realm, and I may get flamed for saying this, but we keep dancing around the implication that bugs us all.

While WLS is NOT the easy way out, it is EASIER to lose weight (just talking about the scale coming down) than traditional weight loss. The weight loss is steadier (even though we tend not to think it is) and more consistent. There is a time, after RNY, that, barring extreme cir****tances, losing is almost a sure thing. That can make the difference in the process. It propels us to want to do more, go above and beyond to KEEP that great feeling of losing going.

Like I said, this is NOT to say our way is the easy way. It wasn’t for me and I’m sure not for any of you either. BUT I think we get offended at the implication that, bio-physically, it is easier to lose weight after WLS. That part, I’m afraid, is true. But it’s not the complete picture.

 

So I think people celebrate folks who did it “on their own" because they overcame the factors we either could not or chose not to overcome to achieve the same results (or sometimes better results) than we did. It makes us think, “why couldn’t I do that?"

Stinkin’ thinkin’ if you ask me but I suspect this is the real reason behind the negative feelings about the wording.

"While WLS is NOT the easy way out, it is EASIER to lose weight (just talking about the scale coming down) than traditional weight loss"

That is so true Nik. I never thought about it that way. I have just been concentrating on the fact  that its not the easy way out because we will have to work at keeping the weight off  for the rest of our lives that I didnt stop to think that yes it is easier to lose the weight with the surgery.

Lisa

I do agree with you.  It was so much easier to lose the weight and to maintain.  At the point in my life I was - I could not lose any weight without the WLS.  My age, hormonal issue, my body that refused to let go of any fat... whatever reason it was - I could not lose any weight without the WLS.
My neiboughr did. She watched me and my other friend get the RNY and she went on 2 year doc supervise liquid diet and she lost 200 lbs. And she is at least 10-15 years older than I am.    I know I could not do that. I did not believe I could do that. 
Will she gain her weight back? I do not know. I know that at this point in my life - I will maintain a strict diet not to gain anymore weight.

And you are right - some of you guys exercise like crazy - I did not.  I did some exercises. But not enough to contribute to my weight loss. what I had - I got sick - had GB out and then another hernia - prevented me to eat more.  Add a few more plastic surgeries... and the recovery, and before I knew it - I got RH and can't eat things that would make me gain weight. (can'
t eat them and not pay for that feeling  horrible)

It is the easier way out.  I still wish I could have DS.  But - what's done is done... it is like buying one car and then realizing that you could get a better model. 

 I think it would be great to do an unbiased look at all weightloss options. But they will never do that. I find that most articles put WLS down as it is the thing to do. Like those that have it are somehow less for doing it. 

If more truthful things were written about WLS in main media then more people wouldnt think it is the wasy way out or cheating.

See that's the thing. I rarely see that. I wish someone would send me one of these articles. I do see magazines go overboard on the "you could die!!!" stuff but not putting folks down for having WLS or necessarily minimizing that choice.

I honestly have not read one article that has done that in a long time.

Honestly, I don't care what the media says. I did correct close friends and family , but everyone else can take long walk off a short pier.

If someone says "oh you did it the easy way" I say "yep, had major surgery, my guts rearranged, my entire lifestyle flipped upside down. If you eat chocolate cake you have guilt and double duty at the gym, if I eat chocolate cake I have the sweats, nausea, cramps, diarrhea AND guilt and double duty at the gym. You can't beat shortcuts"

It drives me bonkers when newscasters identify a criminal's race.  Unless they are wanting the public to help find/identify a perpetrator, there is no need to say if the burglar was hispanic, black, etc.  (And, interestingly, they usually do not identify if the suspect is white, only if he/she is of another race.)

I mostly feel the same about this issue.  Why does it need to be identified if someone lost 100lbs through WLS, liquid diets, extreme exercise, prescription drugs, etc., unless it is the point of the article?  If an article is about how someone's life has drastically changed since their transformation, is it really necessary to include it?  Isn't the result, as well as the intent of the article, the same?