Diary of a Fat Girl

Lisa,

I realize this post reflects your experience with diets (and mine, for that matter), but you're setting up a false dichotomy of two extremes, which is not accurate.

That is because of the following:

1) Not all diets involve starvation. To be sure, most fad diets do. But it is possible to lose weight by taking in, say, 200 fewer cals a day than one burns at one's normal metabolic rate. That hardly leads to starvation or binge eating disorder.

2) The "being thin doesn't equal being healthy" statement is true, BUT, statistically speaking, a thin person is far more likely to be healthy than a super morbidly obese person. "Fat" is a very inaccurate and wide-encompassing term. People who are a little fat are probably fine. People who are really, really fat are in all likelihood not healthy on some level. Obesity has been linked to an inflammatory immune system response, for example.

3) The metabolic slowdown (damage?) you speak of is not an inevitability of dieting, nor is it necessarily permanent even if it occurs. At least one study has found that formerly obese women in the normal weight range as determined by body composition did NOT have impaired metabolic rates compared to women of the same weight and body composition. The study did find that the formerly obese women were more likely to store excess calories as fat, though, but whether that was a result of dieting or a pre-existing condition that helped make them fat in the first place.

Also, you must understand why some of your readers such as myself might have some skepticism about your claims that your new diet is helping your health as much as you feel it is. Just few weeks ago you posted about how bad you felt--your blood sugar is out of control and you were having mysterious pains in your chest at night. You've also had the problems with possible intestinal scarring leading you to difficulties with eating and dumping afterwards. This might have been an inevitable consequence of the several rounds of gastric surgeries you've had, but what if it is partly due to your new diet as well? The way you are eating will cause your stomach to produce a lot of extra acid, which could be contributing to your intestinal scarring. So while you may feel your new diet is helping your health, some of your readers and friends (based on what you have posted recently) may be more skeptical of your claims.

After all, individuals are very susceptible to drawing incorrect conclusions based on pre-existing biases. That is the reason that properly conducted scientific studies are comparatively more reliable, as they help to minimize this kind of bias.

Puffs Plus, You've had issues with me before. I'm not surprised to see you disagreeing with me now.

1) Calorie restrictive diets will tend to involve starvation most of the time in the same way getting hit by a train will tend to involve death. Not 100% of the time. Just most of the time. Care to help me prove that one? (the train one)

2)Go to NAAFA or HAES if you want to argue about tendencies to be healthy and size as an indicator of health. And your fat prejudice is icky.

3) Metabolic damage IS an inevitable consequence of dieting.
Go do some research. I recommend independent health researcher Matt Stone who has read more books than me on the topic.

Be as skeptical as you want. It's your life. It's your body. You have to discern what is best for you.

I'm telling my story. Your reactions to it are not my problem.

I think I hear a train coming.

Lisa

1) No, calorie restrictive diets do not usually rely on starvation. Not in this day and age when it's known how badly those types of diets backfire. Weight Watchers uses the point system and you get more points to use if you are heavier to start with, for instance.

2) I have no "fat prejudice". I'm going by what has been shown statistically over and over again in thousands of studies. The fatter you are, the more likely you are to be sick in one or more ways. HAES is a nice concept, but it often does not reflect reality. Someone who is very, very fat might beat the odds, but most of the time they won't. The fatter they are, the worse the odds are.

3) No, metabolic "damage" is not an inevitable consequence of dieting. As someone who has, like yourself, done a lot of dieting in my life, I have had an interest in looking up the peer-reviewed published scientific research in this area. There is no such thing as permanent metabolic damage from dieting. In fact, obese people, even if they have dieted before, have higher base metabolic rates than lean people, simply Even if Matt Stone says otherwise. Matt Stone, from what I can tell, is a guy with no educational or research credentials, no papers published in peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals, who is hawking his book on his website. Big deal. Anyone can write a book.

You work in the academic world yourself, correct? Surely you know something about the value of peer-reviewed published research?

4) You claim you are "telling my story". But you are doing more than that, you habitually make incorrect and unsubstantiated medical and scientific claims on this blog. You're talking about writing a book to try to convince other people of these claims as well, correct? So that other people can be healthy? But you are not that healthy yourself, so why should other people believe your claims? You have poorly controlled diabetes, you're still gaining weight, and you need a knee replacement at age 46. That doesn't sound like someone at the peak of health to me.

The train you hear coming may be the one that results in the wreck your health. And I'm not saying that to be nasty or snarky. Obviously, I'm not the only one reading this blog and getting increasingly concerned by what you post. You posted recently about a friend who was concerned also. Maybe you should listen a little bit to your friends who are worried about you. I don't know you, but I've enjoyed your blog and I was touched by your video that showed you right after your gastric bypass, like many people were.

Also, I know you feel that the WLS was a mistake, and I'm certainly not pro-WLS myself, although for some people it clearly has improved their health. But objectively speaking, Lisa, you still would be considered a WLS success. I mean, you've kept off about 100 lbs four years out, right? If nothing else, that has probably stopped stressing your knee joints out so much.

Sure I value peer-reviewed research but you're not a peer. You're an anonymous troll on my blog.

Since I don't have the time, energy or interest in moderating an argument board this is the only answer you're getting.

You don't deserve the attention.

CONCERN TROLL: A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. Trolling is viewed as insincere and condescending.

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".