In one of the articles I posted in my introduction post, there is an article cited that I thought was interesting:

Weight Loss Surgery May Help Less Severely Obese, US News & World Report

Obviously weight loss surgery has typically been recommended (and covered by insurance) only for those with BMIs above 40, or 35+ with a co-morbidity. However, I know that there are some providers here in Dallas who have been exploring the 30-35 BMI market as a more preventative, quasi-cosmetic procedure. I think we'd all agree that once BMIs get above 30, weight loss is a positive thing regardless of whatever the primary underlying reason is. But I am interested to know what everyone things of weight loss surgery as being not just a last-resort option, and even moving into the cosmetic realm.

Articles the one cited above make me think that this could end up becoming a trend for the future (but obviously not a majority of the cases considering the reluctance of insurance companies to cover the procedure.)

I want to thank you for this article. My BMI was 37 before I got the surgery. I got very little support from my friends on my decision because "I wasn't that big" They don't believe me when I say my decision was not a cosmetic one(although it will be a nice little perk). It was a decision based on an unusually high incidence of CV disease in our family. I really needed this article! Again thank you!

I am more than happy to admit that I had weight loss surgery as a preventative and cosmetic procedure.

I was worried about my future health and I knew I was likely to get fatter. But I hated how I looked, I felt bloated and disgusting and unable to wear anything I wanted.

I fail to see how its "OK" to have plastic tits and tummy tucks and arm lifts but everyone balks at weight loss surgery as so "extreme" and thus not a cosmetic procedure. Yes gastric bypass is way too extreme for cosmetic reasons in my opinion. But lapband surgery is short, simple, safe and the result is a healthier lifestyle (if you use the tool right), not a restrictive, malnourished one. So how on earth is that somehow morally reprehensible but getting silicone bags in your chest is accepted? That's stupid to me. My "cosmetic" procedure has had way more benefit than that - I look better, I feel better about myself, but I am also way healthier and have prevented future obesity related problems.

So maybe my band fails sometime in the future and I need a new one. Doesnt that happen to fake boobs too? I just find it ironic that many of the people who frown upon "cosmetic banding" are more than willing to have tummy tucks when they've lost their weight. I just dont see the difference. By being banded at a lower bmi, I dont NEED a tummy tuck! I know which operation would be easier to recover from!

I had a BMI of 35 and no real health problems by the way. Highish blood pressure and cholesterol but not outside of normal range. A few back and heel problems which weight loss has improved but not cured. In Australia thankfully, most surgeons share my view of it and I had no trouble being approved to be banded.

Waiting till your morbidly obese to do something about it is a shame. A system that forces you to wait like that is pretty stupid and short sighted.

I'm all for both - low bmi banding and cosmetic banding. There's enough bands to go around, there's enough surgeons to do it and fat is fat is fat.

I have one more comment: THANK YOU!!!!

I am so on board with this one! I am scheduled for surgery on October 1st; my BMI is in the mid-30's range, and I am not ashamed in the least to admit it is for mainly cosmetic reasons. The health perks will be nice too, but let's be real! It's been a while since I turned a man's head and Victoria's Secret has been calling to me for years! I know how to lose the weight; it's the keeping it off, that's the b---h! Finally, a solution!