I am trying to better understand the impact of aging on our sleeve. Any thoughts?

Do you mean the nutritional impacts? The sleeve has only been around since 2011 so the data is not in.

My logical self says that it will not have much impact. Usually when we get old our appetite decreases and our diversity of food choices decrease as well. Consequently, I feel that nutritionally it will have the least impact of all WLS surgeries as malabsorption is not a factor in the equation.

I hope that kind of answer is what you are looking for.

P

Yes, I think that's what I was thinking of, I am seeing many young people on this forum getting sleeved. With other WLS fading from popularitysuch as the band. Was wondering the long term implications.

By the way, I understand the sleeve was around since 1999. But has recently become popular.

2 hours ago, Blater said:

Yes, I think that's what I was thinking of, I am seeing many young people on this forum getting sleeved. With other WLS fading from popularitysuch as the band. Was wondering the long term implications.

By the way, I understand the sleeve was around since 1999. But has recently become popular.

That is correct. People began getting Jt more around 2007

4 hours ago, Blater said:

I am trying to better understand the impact of aging on our sleeve. Any thoughts?

Given the numerous studies that have found a positive correlation between calorie restriction and increased longevity, I would not be surprised to see a bump in longevity for sleeved peeps once the post-op and comorbidity mortality have been neutralized.

On the other hand, we may also have a propensity to LOOK older than we would have otherwise due to sagging skin and lower fat intake. There could also be osteoporosis and dental repercussions for those of us who don't keep up with the calcium supplements, especially if sleeved young.

I've been pondering on this, too, can you tell? But I'm hoping the surgery will let me age more like my relatively slender paternal relatives rather than my maternal relatives who are all struggling with the syndrome X spectrum of health and weight issues and who tend to become infirm much younger.

Edited April 15, 20179 yr by HeatherS.
Legibility

Those are great points Heather.

With how different the post op instructions from surgeons on vitamins, for instance I was told I didn't need calcium after three months and no b12! Thank god, I did tons of research. I wouldn't be surprised if forums 10 or 15 years have posts from lots of people complaining of complications due vitamins deficiency.

7 minutes ago, Blater said:

Those are great points Heather.

With how different the post op instructions from surgeons on Vitamins, for instance I was told I didn't need Calcium after three months and no b12! Thank god, I did tons of research. I wouldn't be surprised if forums 10 or 15 years have posts from lots of people complaining of complications due vitamins deficiency.

I think you're right, especially those who don't follow up on the bloodwork with their GPs. Blood work is what wasn't mentioned by my surgical team.

Also, a lot of people think that because VSG isn't malabsorptive, vitamin deficiencies aren't an issue while forgetting that some vitamins need to spend time in the stomach to start breaking down with the stomach acids, which affects how much your body can actually extract (calcium is one of those, I think?)

Its too easy to forget that less food = fewer nutrients. And lots of people going the ketogenic route are virtually eliminating whole categories of nutrient-bearing foods.

Another thought is that pre-sleeve I was eating nutrient deficient foods. Most of what I ate was probably pretty bad for me.

Now I eat dense proteins and few carbs. What carbs I do get are from veggies.

My body is fed better than it ever has been.

I was not told to take a calcium supplement either but it just made sense.

Take care

I was thinking of older wls and with a google search ran into a forum for folks who had the VBG. Reading the stories of folks who are dealing with complications 10 and 20 years was scary!

On 4/15/2017 at 11:29 AM, Pam_2-06-2017 said:

Do you mean the nutritional impacts? The sleeve has only been around since 2011 so the data is not in.

My logical self says that it will not have much impact. Usually when we get old our appetite decreases and our diversity of food choices decrease as well. Consequently, I feel that nutritionally it will have the least impact of all WLS surgeries as malabsorption is not a factor in the equation.

I hope that kind of answer is what you are looking for.

P

People have had all or most of their stomach removed for various reasons, ulcers, war injuries for over 100 years. There is tons of data on it.

While the application for weight loss is new, removing the stomach is a very old procedure with tons of data. More than RNY which is why I choose it.

People live long healthy lives with a minimal or no stomach. You do not need a stomach to live, found however need healthy intestines.

While shuffling down a longevity rabbit hole on PubMed, I found a fascinating study in the calorie restriction "genre"

This one found, amongst other things, that low protein, high carbohydrate (20% fat) was associated with the greatest longevity and best overall metabolic health in spite of a tendency to weight gain as fat. The improvement was equal to caloric restriction alone, and combining the two had no additional metabolic benefits (LPHC also tended to expend the most energy)

The version of the experiment where LPHC was combined with CR had the same longevity, but also avoided the increase in body mass from the high carbohydrate Intake. They also had the best immune systems

The low carbohydrate, high protein group were found to have reduced longevity and poorer cardiovascular and metabolic health, though again, LCHP group with CR fared better than those allowed to eat freely.

The area where LCHP created an advantage was in reproduction. Not in fertility, but in the actual process of reproduction, which makes complete sense.

You can read the whole report here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472496/

It should be mentioned this study is still one part of decades of research on Calorie Restriction and dietary composition.

From the strong evidence in favor of dietary restriction, we should all be seeing increased life spans (depending on age of intervention, some will be more modest than others).

But I wonder how the evidence building up for HCLP can be applied to us.

HCLP emphasizes low glycemic index carb sources and 5-15% protein intake, but at our level of consumption 600-1000 calories a day in maintenance depending on your needs), that would only be 12.5-37.5g protein which seems like it would result in a deficiency. The famous Okinawan Ratio is on the low end of that, though people studied consumed about twice the calories (if I remember right, and I might not) which is still only 25g protein/day.

And yet, I'm not seeing any of these deficiencies in the literature. No deficiencies in the Okinawans either.

Curiouser and curiouser.

One of my sociology professors talked about how different cultures helped indigenous peoples adapt to the foods available and that those people typically had other cultural adaptations to help fill in the gaps. While people from the far north are famous for eating more protein and fat (which is also the most available food source), those closer to the equator tend to eat more fruit and vegetables. The diet that is best for you might not be the same for others based on a variety of factors that are likely some genetic and some environmental.

On 4/15/2017 at 1:27 PM, HeatherS. said:

Given the numerous studies that have found a positive correlation between calorie restriction and increased longevity, I would not be surprised to see a bump in longevity for sleeved peeps once the post-op and comorbidity mortality have been neutralized.

On the other hand, we may also have a propensity to LOOK older than we would have otherwise due to sagging skin and lower fat intake. There could also be osteoporosis and dental repercussions for those of us who don't keep up with the Calcium supplements, especially if sleeved young.

I've been pondering on this, too, can you tell? But I'm hoping the surgery will let me age more like my relatively slender paternal relatives rather than my maternal relatives who are all struggling with the syndrome X spectrum of health and weight issues and who tend to become infirm much younger.

Indeed.

The resolving of numerous comorbidities, or at least improvement, is undoubtedly a reason for increased lifespan over the continuing of a self-destructive path.

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:53 PM, HeatherS. said:

While shuffling down a longevity rabbit hole on PubMed, I found a fascinating study in the calorie restriction "genre"

This one found, amongst other things, that low Protein, high carbohydrate (20% fat) was associated with the greatest longevity and best overall metabolic health in spite of a tendency to weight gain as fat. The improvement was equal to caloric restriction alone, and combining the two had no additional metabolic benefits (LPHC also tended to expend the most energy)

The version of the experiment where LPHC was combined with CR had the same longevity, but also avoided the increase in body mass from the high carbohydrate Intake. They also had the best immune systems

The low carbohydrate, high protein group were found to have reduced longevity and poorer cardiovascular and metabolic health, though again, LCHP group with CR fared better than those allowed to eat freely.

The area where LCHP created an advantage was in reproduction. Not in fertility, but in the actual process of reproduction, which makes complete sense.

You can read the whole report here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472496/

It should be mentioned this study is still one part of decades of research on Calorie Restriction and dietary composition.

From the strong evidence in favor of dietary restriction, we should all be seeing increased life spans (depending on age of intervention, some will be more modest than others).

But I wonder how the evidence building up for HCLP can be applied to us.

HCLP emphasizes low glycemic index carb sources and 5-15% protein intake, but at our level of consumption 600-1000 calories a day in maintenance depending on your needs), that would only be 12.5-37.5g protein which seems like it would result in a deficiency. The famous Okinawan Ratio is on the low end of that, though people studied consumed about twice the calories (if I remember right, and I might not) which is still only 25g protein/day.

And yet, I'm not seeing any of these deficiencies in the literature. No deficiencies in the Okinawans either.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Very interesting! Thanks for posting the link. It kind of confirms what I've suspected about HPLC diets, long term; I don't like them. Once cleared for foods, I'll find the right balance for myself, as I'm going more plant based. We shall see....

No one is maintaining long term on 600 to 1000 calories. Where is this nonsense coming from?

4 hours ago, Newme17 said:

Very interesting! Thanks for posting the link. It kind of confirms what I've suspected about HPLC diets, long term; I don't like them. Once cleared for foods, I'll find the right balance for myself, as I'm going more plant based. We shall see....

You're welcome. I tend to eat in a way that mirrors Okinawa or the Mediterranean style out of habit and what I enjoy cooking, so it's hopeful to read.

And maintenance calories seem to be higher than I'd heard which probably explains the discrepancy.