Birinak

Your weight-loss is inspirational and I congratulate you, but I suppose we will have to "agree to disagree," especially about fats. You'll also have to agree to disagree with the science of chemistry. Various fats are quite different in their chemical structures and in how our body responds to them. "Fat is a fat. end of." I'm not sure how writing "end of" settles the issue of whether "a fat is just a fat." Perhaps it just gives the feeling of finality. You now say that you never discussed "digestion," but what other process were you thinking of when judging whether a digested substance is the same as another? Aside from chemical composition, which you surely agree differs, how foods are digested and used by the body are the basis of whether they are different from one another. In terms of food, this is the one process underlying all others. Fats vary also in their energy content. This has direct relevance to weight-loss and health. I'm not sure how you're attempting to argue otherwise. I never said that simple or complex carbs differ noticeably in how much they impact glucose levels. You've attempted to knock down an argument that I haven't set up. I said that Fiber causes no difference in glucose levels, whereas other forms of carbs, both simple and complex typically do. The main reason to predominantly eat complex carbs is because such foods are in a less processed form and possess more fiber. You may feel that how a food impacts blood glucose levels has no significance to weight-loss, but I'm sure you're not arguing that they have no real significance to a segment of the population. Again, I agreed that it probably makes little difference whether one uses casein, whey isolate, or whey concentrate for weight-loss. The considerations that should be important to those choosing between them are how easily digestible they are and how quickly the person needs their Protein to be digested. If a person is either needing protein immediately after a work-out or if they suffer from bloating, this may affect their decision. People here are discussing which protein powders they should take for the best digestibility and effect, in general, not solely for weight-loss. As I mentioned in the previous post, I also agree with the general spirit of your post, which I take to be that dieters shouldn't get caught up in the details of the food they are eating; if they follow common-sense and consistently reduce their calorie, fat, or carb intake, they will likely be successful with their weight-loss. Dieters who become preoccupied with this kind of carb versus that may be behaving impulsively and may be unable to maintain their regime. However, if they are concerned with health in general (such as cholesterol levels), with practical matters such as bloating, or if they want to make their weight-loss regime as efficient as possible, then adjusting their eating according to the details can be helpful.

I'd agree that for most purposes, a protein is a protein, but there are some differences according to the forms that Proteins come in. The stomach digests some proteins more quickly than others. In terms of protein powders, casein digests slower than whey. If I were to choose a Protein Powder to use immediately after exercise, I would use whey isolate. I would also opt for something other than casein if I were feeling bloated. Also, proteins vary according to amino acid composition. Anyhow, the overall function of the various protein powders is the same and the effect on muscle build likely similar. And, not all carbs and fats are the same. For our purposes, differences among carbs are not always important, but the same could not be said for fats. In terms of carbs, there are monosaccharides and disaccharides (simple carbohydrates), and polysaccharides and oligosaccharides (complex), which are monosaccharide polymers. Some carbohydrates are digested more quickly than others, also depending on the food source and preparation. Fiber, for instance, is a carbohydrate, but it is not digested by the stomach. So, fiber, while offering the benefits of roughage, will not cause a change in blood glucose levels. Most importantly, fats are also very different depending on chemical composition and absorption by the body. They differ in energy content and some fats are essential for the human body, while others are not.

The advisement against drinking your calories makes sense. People feel more full on solid foods than liquids, and something like an iced cappuchino can have the calories of a cheeseburger, while only feeling like a light snack. However, for people who mindfully consume protein shakes within their caloric budget and also make sure to meet their nutritional needs, they don't have to feel bad about "breaking" this rule. You're doing what makes sense for your needs and what produces results. So, in general, it's a good rule, but there's nothing wrong with adapting it to fit your regime.

Well, there's another Protein shake thread going on in the post-op subforum, but I'd also suggest Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey. For some people, flavour doesn't matter. I'm not one of those people. If it has a slight after-taste, I won't drink it for long. The shake I have now is Opt. Nutrition 100% Whey Mocha Cappucino flavour. I've been drinking it two times a day with milk and it's pretty good. It tastes like chocolate milk and I haven't detected an aftertaste. Opt. Nutrition is pretty popular on other fitness forums for their double chocolate and strawberry flavours. Anyway, maybe you'd like to try it. I've also heard good things about GNC's brand.

Doesn't ship to Canada... I was looking forward to some tasty free samples!

I don't drink my calories with coffee, juice (etc), but I do take two Protein shakes per day. I'm not on a very low-calorie diet. I'm doing about 1000-1100 calories and 130 grams of carbs/day. Also, I have a cheat day once a week, when my caloric intake is about 1600-1800. My weight-loss within the last 4 months has sped up but is still slower than many bandsters (I'm losing about 2 pounds/week). I prefer not being on a strict diet regime. It keeps me from feeling deprived or counting the days until my diet is over. I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian and I get in about 45 grams of protein through real food. I don't eat eggs or milk that often though. I take a scoop of Optimum Nutrition 100% whey two times a day with milk. This means that I get the extra protein from the powder and I am now consuming milk everyday, which I find beneficial. This usually brings my protein consumption to 95 grams a day. I could probably find ways to increase my protein without the Protein Shakes and without increasing my caloric intake (while being lacto-ovo veg), but I'm pretty lazy and I'm still within my caloric budget, so this works for me. By the way, if anyone's looking for a Protein shake, Opt. Nutrition (double chocolate, mocha cappuchino, or delicious strawberry) tastes pretty good and is low-carb (3 grams/scoop).

I seriously doubt that this rule was intended as an absolute. Most food advertised on tv is fast-food or packaged. In fact, I think all of these rules are general guidelines to healthy eating. Again, it's just common-sense. I'm sure that this doctor wouldn't advise against eating cucumbers because they're sometimes advertised on TV. We don't have to be pedantic about this. It's about observing the "spirit of the law."

We can make a concerted effort to adopt these rules over time though. A lot of bandsters aren't just relying on the band. They're doing things that they haven't done in years. You can still eat like crap with the band. It doesn't force you to exercise. You can gain weight with the band. Bandsters who go from morbid obesity to 130 pounds have drastically changed the way that they operate. People find that they actually can do things they formerly believed they just "couldn't." We're not automatons; we can change. Your quote marks seem to imply scepticism. The rules are just good common sense and they're probably what most people follow 80% of the time if they are successfully maintaining their weight-loss.

I have a slight fear of needles leading to fainting. It's not something that ever preoccupies me, like a genuine phobia, but I get very uncomfortable when I think about veins/arteries, blood transfusions, blood bags etc.. And, the last two times that I was getting my blood drawn for tests, I nearly fainted (cold sweats, ringing ears, drooping head). I also almost fainted the first two times I had a fill, although blood is not involved. I think my fear of venous and arterial blood has just expanded to include needles because of the association. Anyway, I don't get faint during fills anymore because I use a few preventative strategies. First, I have some salt (in Water or just a pinch of salt off my hand) before going for a fill. This raises my blood pressure, making it less likely for it to drop to a level where I feel faint. Then, I tell my fill-practitioner that I have this problem and that I need to have my fills lying down. Also, if it is ever taking them too long to find my port, I ask to take a break. If the process is too drawn out and I keep getting jabbed with the needle, it's more likely that I'll faint. Consuming caffeine and taking a quick walk before a fill will also raise your blood pressure. And, you'll be more likely to faint if you've had too little sleep or you haven't eaten.

I don't think fruit fits on a list of "bad stuff." Maybe it's not a food eaten on ketogenic diets, but fruit is certainly not unhealthy.

It's going pretty well. My weight-loss was really slow in the first 5 months, but it's picked up since then. Looks like your surgery date is approaching. Do you know where you plan to get your fills yet?

You're not necessarily going to throw up or feel bad if you eat solids too soon. The point of not eating these foods too soon after surgery is not so that you don't throw up, but so that you take it easy on your stomach. Right now, your stomach is healing and scar-tissue is building around your band, keeping the band in place. If you eat non-liquid foods too soon, your stomach has to do more work to move the food downwards than if it only had to digest liquids. This disrupts the formation of scar-tissue and puts you at greater risk of your band slipping out of place in a year or two from now. I doubt that a little bit of well-cooked veggies is going to do damage (then again, I'm not a doctor), but, just in case, you should try to stick to your list of permitted foods.

Hey there, fellow Ontarian. I'm from Toronto. Welcome to the bandster community!

There are quite a few military spouses on here. I'm sure they'll be able to advise you. Good luck.

You're the comedian?

I'm pleased with the band so far, but I would probably go for the sleeve if I had to choose again or if my band ever has complications. I like that the sleeve doesn't require post-op maintenance. I also like that it can be done by reputable surgeons for 5500 dollars in Mexico (make sure to really research and ask around if you go this route). And, one of my greatest worries is having a complication that requires taking the band out or replacing it (or that causes permanent damage). There are risks of peri-operative complications with the sleeve, but I haven't heard of any post-op (after the wounds are fully healed). Also, people seem to have to diet less with the sleeve. Obviously, they can still "eat around" the sleeved stomach, but it seems that most people are restricted from the start and consistently thereafter. Also, the sleeve operation removes the portion of the stomach the produces the hunger-causing hormone, Ghrelin. That means that you have a real decrease in actual hunger. Finally, it's much harder to stretch the portion of the stomach that is surgically altered with the sleeve than it is with the band's pouch or the bypass stomach. You should have a look at the vertical sleeve talk site (there's a link on this forum), if you haven't already. You'll notice that there's a lot less disappointment and confusion concerning the sleeve, than there is on the band forum.

I agree that this didn't need to turn into a debate. If you refer to my original post, you'll see that I never had any intention of arguing with anyone. I didn't direct the post at elfie. Also, I don't understand why you're telling me about the efficacy of the diet, as if I were claiming otherwise. I, myself, have said repeatedly that low-carb diets can help people lose weight quickly. I never said that elfie was wrong in this respect. I also never claimed that eating low-carbs makes you unhealthy or stupid. Please use your high intelligence to understand the statements posted. I said that the original study demonstrated a difference in the memory and response times of low-carb dieters before, during, and after their diets (and in comparison to low-calorie diets). This is only one study. There are others that demonstrate negative effects. There are also those that demonstrate positive effects of low-carb diets on overall health compared to obesity. I say this after reviewing the research database at my university. My essential point is that the science on low-carb dieting is yet inconclusive, and anyone claiming to know what is "absolutely true" is pretending or has god-like omniscience. In the original post, I only said that people should be aware of some studies that show potential risks to consuming too much protein. That's all. Then, she responds as if I've personally attacked her or "trashed" low-carb diets. She also accused me of being a part of the "anti-low carb" crowd that wants to get people eating carbs and make them fat again. This is not a reasonable reaction. Being stressed because people mention the potential risks of a diet-plan is also not reasonable behaviour. Also, I never asked elfie to leave the forum. She said that she would because she couldn't handle criticism of a diet. Well, alright. As I said, I couldn't imagine reacting in this way if people discussed the potential risks of a diet that I happened to be on, unless they were targeting me in particular. Anyhow, I'm really doubting that she will in fact leave or that she ever really intended to leave. She keeps coming back to post, and each time saying that it will be her last post.

So, my last post has mysteriously disappeared. Oh well. And you keep breaking your promise, elfie. Since you claimed that you were done with LBT, I closed all the browser windows that I had open of studies demonstrating potential risks of low-carb/high-fat diets. I'll have to go back to the research database to retrieve them again. Even if you do eventually, some day, maybe, leave LBT,-- seeing as criticism of a diet is actually causing you "stress in your life" --I'll cite the studies in another post for other people to read. You denigrate "traditional science" as if it were non-progressive and "traditional" in the pejorative-sense of the word. This shows how little you understand science. Science is the very embodiment of progress. Every published study is an attempt to further the human understanding of truth. You try to subtly insult me by saying that I refuse to think outside of the box. There is no need to step outside the "box" of statistically-tested and verifiable science to answer empirical questions, as this box is infinite in size. Each advancement in science leads to another possible advancement. Traditional scientific methods put humans on the moon. Thanks to traditional science, we have the polio vaccine and the Hubble Telescope to look at the "edge" of the universe. Traditional scientists have mapped the entire human-genome, creating new potentials for cancer-curing drugs. The rate of discoveries using the traditional scientific method is exponential. The computer you use to visit LBT; the chemically-treated structure housing you; the vehicle you use for transportation--they all exist because of traditional science. Traditional science produces results. Go ahead; applaud yourself for stepping outside the box of traditional science. (I guess we should also applaud the insane for stepping outside the box of rationality! After all, stepping outside the box is always a virtue and being accused of not doing so is a real insult, didn't you know?) And go ahead; consult journalists for answers on scientific questions and continue to believe that you have attained an absolute understanding of science, even while the experts are yet undecided. Fortunately, new scientific discoveries don't depend on what "non-traditionalists" do or believe. Non-traditionalists have never produced comparable results. When I have a scientific question--such as: "does this diet have any negative effects?"--I look directly to scientists to answer it. I don't get it through a filter of financially-invested practitioners and unqualified journalists. I verify my practitioner's advice with a comprehensive examination of the primary sources. Yes, a doctorate in science is actually a necessary qualification to establish scientific expertise. Graduate degrees train experts in their field and in scientific methods, and test their knowledge. To you, that's elitism. To reasonable people, that's just common sense. You keep writing as if I'm saying that low-carb diets are bad. I was only informing people of potential risks of an extreme restriction of carbs, and of the excessive consumption of Protein. You said that I'm "trashing" low-carb diets. Where have I done anything approaching trashing the diet? Again, you're willfully misrepresenting what I've written. I don't need to repeat all that I've said in favour of low-carb diets. I made it quite clear that I find it an effective way to lose weight at least in the short-term. Whether most people will maintain a very low-carb diet for the rest of their lives is in question. Again, I've come to this conclusion not only from all of the low-carb dieters that I personally know (being anecdotal evidence, I'm not using this to support my argument), but also from some studies that demonstrate the same doubts. (I, myself, might consider using a moderately low-carb, low-fat diet temporarily if I ever need to lose weight more quickly). You also referred to my slight cautions as a "subtle" and falsely "well-meaning" trashing of low-carb diets. Meaning that, I'm just like all the others of the "anti-low-carb crowd," as you call them, but I'm disguising my hatred for low-carb diets by being subtle and pretending to be well-meaning. Aside from the fact that this comes off as paranoid (along with your accusation that my kind want to scare people into eating carbs to make them fat again), what your statements are really saying is that, in order to satisfy you, there is no way to speak about low-carb diets other than positively. Think about it. If someone comes out harshly against low-carb diets, then obviously you'll say that they're a member of an "anti-low-carb" conspiracy to make people fat again. But, if someone briefly mentions potential risks and healthier ways to continue on a low-carb diet… then they too are anti-low-carb and they're just being sneaky about it. So, how can a person discuss the potential risks of low-carb diets in a way that will satisfy you as to their good motives? Well, they can't. There's no way to escape your accusations of being a conspirator against low-carbs, except by praising low-carb diets with no caveats. And, according to you, people shouldn't even be discussing potential risks; didn't we know that low-carb diets are definitely "healthy for everyone?"

I haven't eaten pizza for at least three months now, but up until 4 months after surgery (August 25th, 2010 surgery), I would have the occasional slice or two (maybe once every two months). The last time I had pizza, to lower the calories and to make it easier to eat, I peeled off a layer of the bread (leaving some of the bread on there). If I were to try pizza now, it'd have to be on a day when my band isn't too tight, it'd have to be a thin-crust pizza, and I'd have to chew VERY well. I'd also take time in between my bites to see if I'm getting stuck. And, I'd definitely not eat more than one slice. I hardly eat bread now. I tried in December and it was pretty difficult. I more eat rye-crisps instead, which are not only low in calories and high in fibre, but also easy to eat since it has the consistency of a tough cracker.

Have you researched the sleeve, or is that not an option for you? With the sleeve, there is no malabsorption, you won't be taking several pills a day, and you have effective weight loss. Also, it's more difficult to stretch out the sleeved part of the stomach. I'm just telling you in case you haven't given that option a look. It's the option that I will go with if I ever need a revision.

Ok, everyone without an extreme bias to one view-point, you'll be able to refer to my first post on this thread. I did not "trash" low-carb diets. I did not say that it was "bad for you," as elfie claims I have. I have never claimed that it was "dangerous," again as elfie seems to imagine. In fact, you'll see that I said that it can lead to "quick and satisfying weight loss" and I later said that I do not think nor have I ever "said that low-carb is bad." I've also never told people to stop their low-carb diet. Not once. In fact, I said that at most, people might want to consider giving it a break for a week before they're taking a challenging test, based on the research that has come out about low-carb's cognitive impacts. Does that sound like someone who's trying to get people to stop their low-carb diet altogether? I said that there is research that will show that low-carb can lead to a healthier life-style. All that I have been saying is that there are some risks to dieters' health and I based this view on current research. I didn't address the original post to the member above, I only said to low-carbers in general that there may be some negative impacts of low-carb dieting if protein is eaten in excess and if it all comes from animal sources. I ask all reasonable people: is this really trashing the diet? I think that such people will agree that it is not. If it's gotten to the point that she is so attached to the diet that a light word of caution to other people drives her to absurd accusations of malign motives, conspiracies to keep people fat, and scare-tactics, and now she feels she will have to leave the forum altogether, that is unfortunate but it is not my decision or concern. I question how much of her self-esteem is tied up with this diet. It's akin to people who can't hear moderate criticism of a religious organization that they belong to without becoming irate. She defends the diet against this slight criticism as strongly as someone defending their own reputation from vicious slander. I assure you that if I ever adopt a particular diet-plan and it gets a little scrutiny, I'll be able to handle it.

I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I'm the one having trouble comprehending something. I'm not the one speaking in absolutes. You are saying that low-carb is definitely healthy for everyone and you're saying that there is absolutely no proof to the contrary. I've said that, although some research shows that there are risks to very low-carb diets, there's also research that demonstrates other benefits of low-carb diets and that I know from personal experience and from the scientific literature that people can lose weight quickly on low-carb. As for your beloved Dr. Bernstein, I'm not confusing him with anyone. He could afford to make his services to the obese much less expensive, just as other doctors with similar programs do (i.e. Dr. Brown has a very successful program, he's greatly respected, and he charges a tiny fraction of Dr. Bernstein). His prices are ridiculous. CBC Marketplace did an investigation of Dr. Bernstein and it was very unflattering. I've done my research on him myself, I've had relatives go to him (or his nurses, more like) and much of what I've read and heard is not flattering. Now, I know that you can't stand to hear anything bad said against the man and you'll probably just chalk it up to another conspiracy theory. But, this isn't just about Dr. Bernstein, it's about low-carb/high-fat diets in general. You cited one study. I can show you many to support my brief words of caution. I have access to those articles and when I have the time, I'll cite them (hopefully tonight). It won't make a difference to your views, but that's because your views are clearly not amenable to reason. You have a particular attachment to a view, and anyone who tells even other people (it wasn't directed to you specifically) of certain possible risks is accused of using "scare tactics" or trying to drive people back to obesity. What did I say that amounts to "scare tactics?" I said, "while you guys are doing your low-carb diet (as in, I'm not telling you that you should stop), just be wary of consuming too much protein and perhaps try to get in some non-animal protein as well." It should be evidence enough of your insurmountable bias that you would see this as some sort of tactic to get people to gain weight or to scare them out of not eating carbs. If you have to avoid carbs because you're a diabetic, and if that's the best way for you to manage your diabetes, did I tell you to do otherwise? You're the one being unreasonable. I never set out to have a "pissing contest." You've said unreasonable and absurd things regarding my motives and also about your own knowledge of what is or isn't "absolutely" true. Even scientific experts don't claim to know conclusively as much as you pretend to know. Good that you've decided to arbitrarily broaden your definition of the word "scientific expert" to include people who have no academic qualifications in that regard (i.e. Taubes). Next, I'll broaden the word to include celebrities who like to talk about science a lot. Taubes is a journalist only. It doesn't matter if he writes about a certain genre; how does that make him qualified to be a scientific expert? I write about science too. I extensively read about science and I have a degree in science. I wouldn't think of calling myself an expert. Science isn't a subjective field, where anyone can be considered a scientist. There are defined standards and abilities that must be proven systematically. The laws of aerodynamics aren't subjective and neither is the definition of a scientist. If Taubes isn't a researcher himself, if he isn't qualified and able to carry out the research of actual scientists, then his opinions on scientific truths are not worth knowing. He neither has a masters in science nor a PhD. in science. Do you really think that physicists are wondering what Gary Taubes, with his undergrad degree, can reveal about quantum physics? No, and that's because he can't reveal anything of importance. He can reveal much less about biological truths, in which he has no training or testing in whatsoever.

After reading it over again, I've decided to delete this post, since I think I was too harsh. I have nothing positive to say to the OP, but I'll just stick to not saying anything more on this issue.

Who could blame you? I'd totally cave to crispy cremes if they were in my house. I could stop myself from buying them, but if they were right there... I'd be in trouble.

I won't claim that what you've said is "absolutely not true" because, before the research is conclusive, it would be unscientific for anyone to pretend to know what is or isn't "absolutely true" about any empirical issue. I also won't be referring to anecdotes about how people I know "feel," as evidence to support my claim. There are also people who feel healthier increasing their consumptions of whole grains and fresh fruit, but anecdotal evidence of feelings is worthless in scientific arguments, or any argument, for reasons you must already know. It's strange that you claim that "there's just absolutely no proof" that low-carb consumption causes "any type of mental deficit." How you came to such a god-like comprehension of the existing scientific research is beyond me. I never said that low-carb diets are bad. I never said that low-carb diets "absolutely" cause "mental deficits." I only pointed to current research that cautions against low-carb diets because they found detrimental effects on cognition in low-carb dieters. I can point to various other studies which demonstrate the health risks of low-carb diets (I will in another post shortly). There's also research that shows that low-carb diets help dieters lose weight quickly and attain better health compared to their former eating habits. But that's why I'm not going to pretend to know absolutely what even the experts of the field can't possibly yet. And, you rely very much on Dr. Berstein, a practitioner outside of the realm of scientific research and one who has an obvious financial interest in advocating the benefits of low-carb diets. If I wanted to argue that off-shore oil drilling is a safe enterprise, I'm not going to cite the opinions of Exxon-Mobile. Even more curious is the fact that you cite Gary Taubes. He only has an undergrad degree in physics. He's a journalist, not a scientist. Scientists don't look to Taubes to contribute anything to the scientific literature. Even if his writings were about physics, they would be worthless to real physicists, let alone to biologists. "This is just another one of those 'myths' that the anti-low carb crowd spreads trying to scare people back into eating the very carbs that made them fat" Haha, what? I assure you that I'm not a member of some grand conspiracy that's trying to lure innocent dieters everywhere back to obesity. Maybe I'm just jealous of your success and I'm looking for some scheme to foil your weight-loss. I won't stop until I make you all fat again, but how shall I do it? I know, I'll just advise people to be careful while on low-carb diets. How nefarious! Your statement--"scare people into eating the very carbs that made them fat"--also implies that it's carbs that make people fat. I'd agree that excessive consumption of especially refined carbs make people fat, but so does excessive eating in general. There are many people on here, including me, who are eating healthy, multigrain carbs daily without gaining weight. Healthy and steady weight loss can be achieved easily by cutting out (or really limiting) refined carbs, controlling portions (thanks, lap-band) and limiting junk foods to the occasional treat. Like many others, I've lost weight quite successfully without an extreme restriction of carbs. You speak of the Dr. Bernstein or low-carb diet as if it were the one true way. Also, if those of the "anti-carb crowd" really wanted to make people fat, they would be criticizing all diets to the same extent. Is it possible that scientists are just conducting research for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge? Also, you keep placing redundant quote marks around words like "belief" and "myth," in order to highlight your utter scepticism of my views or the research. But, the word "myth" already by definition implies something that is false. There's no such thing as a "true myth." Also, a "belief" is well-understood to be subjective and liable to be incorrect. So, unless you're trying to secretly tell me that you don't really believe my "beliefs" are "myths," you should give the punctuation the day-off. Rest at ease, there's little chance that people will read your post and come away thinking that you agree with the research I mentioned. Everyone knows that you're a staunch defender of the Dr. Berstein way.