Question:
Weight loss after surgery

I am extremely curious about the answer to this. After surgery many of us are consuming a small amount of calories. In addition, some of us also have the malabsorption component. I know that in order to break a plateau, we are advised to get plenty of protein, water and exercise. I am not advocating doing otherwise. However, based on the scientific fact that each pound is 3,500 calories, how can we not lose weight on 300-800 calories per day? I religiously get my protein, water and exercise in each day, as well as the appropriate vitamins and minerals, so I strongly agree that everyone should be doing this. I know your body thinks it is starving with such a low calorie count, but won't you lose weight eventually? Also, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot compare our rate of loss with someone younger, higher weight, etc. But how can anyone say, "Have you ever lost 30 pounds in six weeks on a diet?" How in the world can anyone compare conventional dieting with WLS? On a conventional diet, you probably are not consuming the small amount of calories you are post-surgically, not to mention the malabsorption component. As a group, WLS patients DO expect to loss more consistently after surgery than on a conventional diet. It is like comparing apples to oranges. It is quite natural to expect more from WLS. If anyone has an answer to this question, please let me know. Love Grace    — Grace H. (posted on October 7, 2002)

October 7, 2002

   — Amber L.

October 7, 2002
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking: even if we eat "too few" calories (assuming we are well supplemented in the nutrition), how can we NOT lose wt? I tend to agree with your thinking. I know there is talk of hibernation (more storage than even before, when we couldn't burn a calorie even for a million bucks), starvation mode and all of those. The weight loss is a slide for a month or so, then steps the rest of the way down. I hate calling 'em plateaus. Starvation mode occurs when there's not enough nutrition to run the systems. Even though I know my personal rate of calorie burning was probably 100 cal per MONTH, even running at full speed with my Type A ways, we still DO need some calories to feed the machine to keep going. If you stayed on an intake (gross) of 300 cal, even if all of it was of nutritional value to us, your malabsorbed net would be less, you would be "filing" all of it in the muscles, organs and bones (in theory) and having none left to spend on silly things, like hair, skin, nails & energy. What you do NOT want to do is lose your pounds in muscle and bone, but to try to direct your loss into fatty tissue only. As to comparing our wt loss post-WLS to anything we managed to push away (only to return), I agree that there IS no comparison. That was a temporary "starving off" and there was no way it would stay gone. NOW we can take it off sensibly, staying much better nourished than before, which means there is a chance we can trick our bodies into thinking it is still getting as much "storage fodder" as before, but in reality, the nutrition is coming in pills, not in food form.
   — vitalady