I posted the following in Boxed Set in error, and since hitting 'post', I've seen a few more photos of PJ that don't look quite as sunken as I thought he did in that video, but still...
I immediately thought gastric bypass + naturally stressed out guy = Qtip impression.
He certainly could, I'm assuming, afford a health staff, but if he's got one, they might need to be replaced.
Various reports have him saying that replacing burgers with 'yogurt and muesli' caused him to lose 70 lbs in 10 months.
I just started on a plan to lose 20 lbs in the next 8 months. At his rate, I should be finished by Monday. Phew!
replacing burgers with 'yogurt and muesli'
Ah, Colon Blow.
I assumed gastric bypass, back when I first saw him with the weight off. He'd lost so much, so fast, and looked very much like my coworker who had the stomach stapling.
70 pounds in ten months = 7 pounds a month = 1.6+ pounds per week. Which is not a dangerously fast speed at which to lose weight. Anything up to 2 pounds a week over the long term is fine. (With much larger losses in the first two months or so fine if you are lucky enough for that to happen, and occassional infrequent higher losses after than fine if not too frequent.)
I'm hesitant to foment a conversation about the benefits or drawbacks of gbs in Movies, but I can say I've seen some pretty bad results in one of my clients. As much or more misery than the original issues.
Sometimes it's great, from what I understand, but in this case, not so much. Then, of course, there is the fellow from the Biggest Loser last season who gained hundreds of pounds back despite TWO surgeries.
It seems to me like there would be some concern that the bypass continues reducing the amount of nutrients you get even after you've burned up most of the excess fat in your body. Like, at some point aren't you going to have to eat hundreds or thousands of extra calories daily to avoid malnutrition?
Like, at some point aren't you going to have to eat hundreds or thousands of extra calories daily to avoid malnutrition?
That is a big problem that's coming to light now that (1) more and more people are undergoing weight-loss surgery, and (2) there's more long-term data to study now that WLS isn't new (i.e., a lot of people are 5+ years post-op).
I'm just wondering at GBS if the goal is 1.6 pounds a week. Cause that really there are many safe ways to get the weight loss. OK, hard to stick to and I have not managed over the long term, but for the cost of that surgery....
But yeah, as far as I know GBS is more dangerous than being overweight.
I don't know if the lap band has been around long enough to generate good stats, but that seems just as freaky to me.... Inserting a whole device with moving parts
around
your stomach. That sounds like a grizzly death from standing too close to a microwave waiting to happen.
I am not a fan of unnecessary surgery, but I will say my cousin who had GBS had reached a point where he literally could not walk up or down stairs without getting out of breath and stressing his heart in really dangerous ways--and he was only 35. Since his surgery 6 years ago, he has started working again and fishing and riding a bike, etc, so for him it was a true lifesaver. He is developmentally challenged, so eating "right" was not really possible for him, but he responded well to the re-education about portions, etc. the surgery kinda made him learn.
On the other hand, a lovely man I work with lost 100 lbs through eating right and exercising for the same health reasons, so....
