I attended a seminar last night where the doctor was really pushing bypass over the band. He said that it takes longer to loss weight with the band and when it is all said and done he said you will lose a lot more with bypass. It has kind of left me confused. I would rather have no surgery than have a bypass.

Thanks,

Kerry

My doctor did the seminar on both and provided pros and cons as well. I never wanted GB. I wanted lap band because it was reversible and less traumatic as far a scars, surgery and recovery. I had my surgery on Thursday 9/8 and today is 9/14 I have lost 6 pounds. I have been walking everyday 20-30 min. I will start lifting hand weights tomorrow 3 pounds. I am just a little soar around the port. With GB I probably would have never been up and running that fast. Plus if you have GB you have to really extremely excercise because the weight comes off sooooooooo fast and you dont want to be small but look old, saggy and bad.

I chose the band simply because bypass was not an option in my book - I DID NOT want my insides re-arranged - period. I'd rather be a fat girl than have bypass. And because the band is completely reversable if need be. I've read, heard, known and had a friend die from complications of bypass. Not an option for me period.

The reason I chose the band was it was newer and technology is always trying to do better. My husband didn't want me getting bypass because of some football player that had complications. My mom knows someone who had bypass and looks old and weathered and she had to have a reoperation because her pouch stretched. however would of liked the faster weight loss. nevere is fool proof but I'll die trying.

One in 200 die from GB, 1 in 2000 or less in LBS (better odds/less risk). I have a friend who had GB and she lost weight so fast that she now looks much older. I may too once I get this weight off but I don't want to lose so fast. ALso, rearranging my anatomy (GB) just scares me! I don't like the sound of "malabsorption".