And I sigh. I feel like this is asking for an eating disorder, but what do I know.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a new balloon device to treat obesity without the need for invasive surgery. The ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System (ReShape Dual Balloon) is intended to facilitate weight loss in obese adult patients. The device likely works by occupying space in the stomach, which may trigger feelings of fullness, or by other mechanisms that are not yet understood.
The ReShape Dual Balloon device is delivered into the stomach via the mouth through a minimally invasive endoscopic procedure. The outpatient procedure usually takes less than 30 minutes while a patient is under mild sedation. Once in place, the balloon device is inflated with a sterile solution, which takes up room in the stomach.
The device does not change or alter the stomach’s natural anatomy. Patients are advised to follow a medically supervised diet and exercise plan to augment their weight loss efforts while using the ReShape Dual Balloon and to maintain their weight loss following its removal. It is meant to be temporary and should be removed six months after it is inserted.
“For those with obesity, significant weight loss and maintenance of that weight loss often requires a combination of solutions including efforts to improve diet and exercise habits,” said William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., acting director of the Office of Device Evaluation at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “This new balloon device provides doctors and patients with a new non-surgical option that can be quickly implanted, is non-permanent, and can be easily removed.”
Something I feel like we already knew? Sigh. Please read.
PR from The Obesity Society -
Alcohol Sensitizes Brain Response to Food Aromas and Increases Food Intake in Women, Research Shows
First study of its kind ties hypothalamus, in addition to the gut, to the aperitif phenomenon
SILVER SPRING, MD – The first study of its kind measuring the brain's role in mediating caloric intake following alcohol consumption among women shows that alcohol exposure sensitizes the brain's response to food aromas and increases caloric intake. The research, led by William J. A. Eiler II, PhD, of the Indiana University School of Medicine's Departments of Medicine and Neurology, adds to the current body of knowledge that alcohol increases food intake, also known as the "aperitif effect," but shows this increased intake does not rely entirely on the oral ingestion of alcohol and its absorption through the gut. The study is published in the July issue of the journal Obesity published by The Obesity Society (TOS).
"The brain, absent contributions from the gut, can play a vital role in regulating food intake. Our study found that alcohol exposure can both increase the brain's sensitivity to external food cues, like aromas, and result in greater food consumption," said Dr. Eiler. "Many alcoholic beverages already include empty calories, and when you combine those calories with the aperitif effect, it can lead to energy imbalance and possibly weight gain."
Researchers conducted the study in 35 non-vegetarian, non-smoking women at a healthy weight. To test the direct effects of alcohol on the brain, researchers circumvented the digestive system by exposing each participant to intravenously administered alcohol at one study visit and then to a placebo (saline) on another study visit, prior to eating. Participants were observed, and brain responses to food and non-food aromas were measured using blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) response via fMRI scans. After imaging, participants were offered a lunch choice between pasta with Italian meat sauce and beef and noodles.
When participants received intravenous alcohol, they ate more food at lunch, on average, compared to when they were given the placebo. However, there were individual differences, with one-third of participants eating less after alcohol exposure when compared to the placebo exposure. In addition to changes in consumption, the area of the brain responsible for certain metabolic processes, thehypothalamus, also responded more to food odors, compared to non-food odors, after alcohol infusion vs. saline. The researchers concluded that the hypothalamus may therefore play a role in mediating the impact of alcohol exposure on our sensitivity to food cues, contributing to the aperitif phenomenon.
"This research helps us to further understand the neural pathways involved in the relationship between food consumption and alcohol," said Martin Binks, PhD, FTOS, TOS Secretary Treasurer and Associate Professor of Nutrition Sciences at Texas Tech University. "Often, the relationship between alcohol on eating is oversimplified; this study unveils a potentially more complex process in need of further study."
Study authors agree and call for further research into the mechanism by which the hypothalamus affects food reward.
"Today, nearly two-thirds of adults in the U.S. consume alcohol, with wine consumption rising, which reinforces the need to better understand how alcohol can contribute to overeating," continued Dr. Binks.
'Anyone with a functioning brain' makes sure they look good in a bikini
Clipped from Raw Story -
“If you are offended by an ad with a woman on it or a hot girl or a hot guy then seek therapy,” Fox News host Jedediah Bila advised on Monday. “I mean, go to a therapist. There’s something wrong with you.”
“At this time of year, anyone with a functioning brain asks themselves that question, ‘Are you beach body ready?'” Tantaros insisted. “In fact, I ask myself that question every single day. And I bet you people who have a problem with this ad going into summer time are not beach body ready.”
“It’s such a bunch of bull,” the Fox News host said of critics. “Everyone wants to know if they look good in a swimsuit!”
“You should grow up wanting to look like that anyway,” guest host Chris Plante quipped.
If you think about weight loss surgery, there are three main options: Gastric Bypass, the Lap Band, and the Gastric Sleeve. But there haven’t been any other weight loss procedures approved by the FDA for over ten years, that is, until now. Back in January the government agency approved a new device that’s less complicated, safe, and effective.
“Most all of my life I have been overweight.” Mike Magnant from Carver loves to spend time on the tugboat he built, but the extra pounds he carried around took a toll. “High blood pressure, high cholesterol, pains in my legs and pains in my knees,” Mike explains. “I couldn’t do the things I wanted to do.”
He tried a slew of diets but every time, he regained the weight and then some.
At a max of 291 pounds, he knew he had to do something drastic. So Mike enrolled in a clinical trial at Tufts Medical Center studying a new minimally invasive weight loss system called vBloc Therapy by EnteroMedics.
Like a pacemaker, the device is inserted under the skin and electrodes are fed into the abdomen and secured around the vagus nerve which controls hunger. Dr. Sajani Shah, a surgeon at Tufts Medical Center who specializes in weight loss surgery, explains, “It blocks the nerve to the brain and basically tells patients that they’re less hungry and they get satiated for longer periods of time.”
About three years ago, Mike underwent the procedure with Dr. Shah. He went home the same day, back to work three days later, and has lost more than 70 pounds. He says he still enjoys a good meal, but just doesn’t eat as much. He doesn’t feel hungry.
Studies showed patients lost about 30% of their excess weight. “If diet and exercise aren’t working because unfortunately the yo-yo dieting is sometimes hard,” says Dr. Shah, “But they don’t want the other things we have to offer, like the bypass or the sleeve because it’s really complicated, then this is a great, safe alternative for patients to treat their obesity.”
And even though the system is reversible, Mike says it’s his to keep. “I’ve told them. I’m never giving it back. I don’t want anybody to take it back,” he smiles.
Mike says not only has he maintained his weight loss but he has saved a lot of money. He takes fewer medications for blood pressure and cholesterol, has fewer doctors’ appointments, eats less food, and spends less on clothing because now he doesn’t have to buy at the big and tall stores.
Just last week, Tufts Medical Center became the first hospital in the country to perform the surgery on a patient outside of a clinical trial.
A post by a Facebook friend the other day got me thinking about blogging. It seems that many of us who used to Write All The Time for ourselves, have stopped. Why is that? Why is it that blogging has become a chore? Why did we start writing in the first place and what changed?
I will tell you what happened: PEOPLE GOT GREEDY. For me, I started blogging because I needed an outlet that would "listen" neutrally. The faceless internet seemed like a good idea.
As I wrote, somehow I got an audience, and an audience creates attention, and attention sends advertisers. I took on advertisements and started earning a part time living from this blog. Heck, I started a blog about blogging because I made a GOOD living from it for a very short time.
The thing is: I have very strong opinions and cannot be paid to be swayed. It tears me up when I read sponsored posts and Tweets and Facebook plugs from other bloggers after they've been given ad money and the posts are no longer in their voice.
Some blogs and connected social media become nothing but pitches. #spon #ad
Where did genuine bloggers go?! Where are you?!
I didn't want to become that, and honestly I hate being called a shill. I used to enjoy writing about product because I USED IT or I LOVED IT or my favorite: I hated it.
I have lost that because everyone and their Mama is overexposing EVERYTHING hoping to get paid. I did get paid. I still have a trickle of advertising, but I can't push it as hard as I "could" because I feel like it alienates those who read my stuff (...for whatever reason they do?) and feel pressured. Bloggers who used to "connect" with me, I realize, I am no longer useful to them if they can't use me. It's sad.
Sometimes I felt like a fake by posting about products I didn't really like. I lost my oomph and advertisers took notice and dumped me. Sadly, sometimes I think it was a relief. I'm not your salesperson. You didn't hire me.
I think these days, most sponsored content needs to come organically. Why do "we" push so hard to be paid to do what we were already doing for free, for ourselves? If someone wants to pay me to be MYSELF, bring it. I can't change or remain silent because you don't like me as I am.
I feel like I have censored myself for so long because I have been afraid of the ADVERTISERS getting mad.
No more. Fuck them. If they're paying me to share product, it's because I AM WORTH IT, and if they choose not to? That's fine too.
Sorry. If I write about your product, it's because I USE IT, I LOVE IT or IT SUCKS. There's no ulterior motive, unless I specifically state that there is. ;)
This video was made as a part of The Bridge Exchange, an exchange program for young artists between VidCon and the Brave New Voices Festival to bridge the spoken word and online video communities. Learn about the project here: http://bit.ly/BridgeExchangeVideoPlay...
Oddly enough last year was my best in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance after my roux en y gastric bypass now eleven years ago.
I just searched the blog for my yearly *cringe* "surgiversary" updates and it appears it really was.
"Best." I maintained a nearly-normal bodyweight for half of the year, guys. If I look back on my averages over the last ten years, the weight is smack-dab in the middle of average. I am just that.
I started out the year at my near lowest, while using the gym and eating decently. My goal had been to continue that - and ignore weight if I could add muscle tone.
One of the most common questions I get inboxed to me is: What Do You Eat Everyday - What Do You Do?! Here is the thing: PEOPLE VARY DRASTICALLY. I realized that my intake vs. output is a delicate balance.
Here's my intake for the most part of the last 90 days:
This looks mostly like this, with days of "Want pizza for dinner? Who wants mozzarella sticks?" Once a week. I eat very little meat, though I am still cooking it a couple times a week for the family.
Protein, veggie, carb - whatever is made for the family or...
Frozen vegan meal
More dinner, usually, I honestly don't eat at dinner time... I eat before bed. I might have a few bites at dinner time, especially if I am cooking, and then I don't want anything.
This isn't much different than my eating of the year before - and I maintain my weight at this level of calories. I would assume I eat about 1500 - 1700 most days with days lower, and days higher (rare).
I actually lose weight at this intake if I am moving enough.
Disclaimer, BMI SUCKS and I have NEVER been in the normal category for more than two minutes because I am SHORT AND I AM SHRINKING so if I want to EAT, I HAVE TO MOVE MY ASS.
I was. I'm not. No excuses.
My intentions were good, but life always seems to have different plans.
I developed some super fun back pain that coincided with less time at the gym (...yes I think movement HELPS pain, but getting past pain to MOVE is now the problem!) and was diagnosed with some degenerative disc disease. My time working out was cut drastically with my spouse's work schedule changing - kid's school schedules and just having no means to go. Adding the lack of gym time to pain = Beth not moving her ass because it hurts = Beth not moving. I started slugging out at home from August (...when the schedule changed) to this winter. I hate to whine because Everybody Huuuurttttts. I'm also super realistic and I know I'm getting older, and it is unlikely that my back will Get Better at this age. It isn't going to benefit me to complain about it now because it's going to get worse with time.
Grinding along through back pain is difficult though, when it makes every part of your day a little more complicated - you'd think just sitting would be restful - easy. Sitting here is the most painful part of my day aside from attempting to sleep laying down, I live in a series of twitchy z-z-z-zaps. If I could pace all day long, I'd be fine.
And I just may start doing that.
Why? *changing tenses, writing badly but writing*
There was a single motivation -- I got on the scale after knowing that I was not fitting in my size medium running pants. THEY SQUISHED ME LIKE A SAUSAGE. I knew I had gained weight, I could see it - but - I kept squishing into them. So what if my legs are more puffy? Whatever.
And then my boobs. MY BOOBS. I didn't HAVE ANY, and a few weeks ago I'm all - O - O - and WHY DO THEY HURT I'd better start my cycle RIGHT NOW or I am going to cry and I just might cry right now or throw up.
I'll save you the dramatic implosion that occurred after three of those, but I've been to the MD twice, and I see a maternal-fetal medicine doctor tomorrow. I was not planning this, obviously, nor was I telling anyone, but a certain spouse outed me - and a lot of people took it as a joke.
I don't find it funny.
I've got this. I have never had a pregnancy WHILE on anti-epileptic medications, so that is of course of concern as I CANNOT be unmedicated and live safely. If you recall, my seizure activity became evident during my first post-RNY pregnancy and it was undiagnosed for a very long time. Also, apparently, I AM OLD. I am "Of Advanced Maternal Age."
ADVANCED. AGE. 3-5. This was the year, that I told my husband, I think we are old enough to have kids now. Forget that my oldest is the same age as I was when I got pregnant with her.
She said, "Well, at least it isn't me." Yes, thanks for that.
Grandma MM doesn't really have a ring to it. And I think my mother would explode.
Dr. H says that "we" watch TV for four hours day, surely we have time to exercise that long, but FRANKLY, I DON'T WANT TO.
I am LAZY.
Do you honestly think I would have even considered it at my former size at ALL? NO freaking way. I am in a normal body weight range right now and there is zero point zero chance of getting me to exercise aerobically four hours daily -- at 320 lbs -- I would have sooner had weight loss surgery -- and I DID. Eleven years ago. LOL. It worked.
If there were any means to get my ass back to the gym and motivated it is reading things like THIS and pushing through back pain and tearing up my stupid excuses. BLAH BLAH BLAH BETH, I DON'T CARE THAT YOU CAN'T DRIVE YOU WILL WALK TO THE GYM AND DO IT ...
The FIT Treadmill Score is calculated using the patient’s age, gender, fitness level measured by METs, and peak heart rate reached during exercise. Researchers found these four factors to be the greatest predictors of mortality risk. After the research team accounted for other important variables, such as diabetes and family history of premature deaths, they determined fitness level to be the single most important predictor of death and survival.
“The notion that being in good physical shape portends lower death risk is by no means new, but we wanted to quantify that risk precisely by age, gender, and fitness level, and do so with an elegantly simple equation that requires no additional fancy testing beyond the standard stress test,” said Dr. Haitham Ahmed, a cardiology fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
FIT Treadmill Scores ranged from negative 200 to positive 200 — participants over 0 had a lower mortality risk while participants under 0 has a higher mortality risk. Participants with a score between negative 100 and 0 had an 11 percent risk for dying in the next 10 years compared to three percent among participants with a scare between 0 and positive 100. Participants with a score lower than negative 100 had a 38 percent mortality risk compared to two percent among those who scored positive 100 or higher.
To determine which routinely collected exercise test variables most strongly correlate with survival and to derive a fitness risk score that can be used to predict 10-year survival.
Patients and Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study of 58,020 adults aged 18 to 96 years who were free of established heart disease and were referred for an exercise stress test from January 1, 1991, through May 31, 2009. Demographic, clinical, exercise, and mortality data were collected on all patients as part of the Henry Ford ExercIse Testing (FIT) Project. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify exercise test variables most predictive of survival. A “FIT Treadmill Score” was then derived from the β coefficients of the model with the highest survival discrimination.
The median age of the 58,020 participants was 53 years (interquartile range, 45-62 years), and 28,201 (49%) were female. Over a median of 10 years (interquartile range, 8-14 years), 6456 patients (11%) died. After age and sex, peak metabolic equivalents of task and percentage of maximum predicted heart rate achieved were most highly predictive of survival (P<.001). Subsequent addition of baseline blood pressure and heart rate, change in vital signs, double product, and risk factor data did not further improve survival discrimination. The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female], ranged from −200 to 200 across the cohort, was near normally distributed, and was found to be highly predictive of 10-year survival (Harrell C statistic, 0.811).
The FIT Treadmill Score is easily attainable from any standard exercise test and translates basic treadmill performance measures into a fitness-related mortality risk score. The FIT Treadmill Score should be validated in external populations.
I feel like we knew this - have you lived with a gastric bypass or duodenal switch patient for a period of time? I'm just saying, those of us with altered bariatric intestines LIVE with "MARSH ASS." Welcome to the world of pre-biotics, probiotics, fart-smell-better products and I kid you not, LINED UNDERWEAR.
Hey, I never said I was a professional. Read the studies.
What is a methanogen? Wisegeek says --
"Methanogens are a type of microorganism that produces methane as a byproduct of metabolismin conditions of very low oxygen. They are often present in bogs, swamps, and other wetlands, where the methane they produce is known as "marsh gas." Methanogens also exist in the guts of some animals, including cows and humans, where they contribute to the methane content of flatulence. Though they were once classified as Archaebacteria, methanogens are now classified as Archaea, distinct from Bacteria.
Some types of methanogen, including those of the Methanopyrus genus, are extremophiles, organisms that thrive in conditions most living things could not survive in, such as hot springs, hydrothermal vents, hot desert soil, and deep subterranean environments. Others, such as those of the Methanocaldococcus genus, are mesophiles, meaning they thrive best in moderate temperatures. Methanobrevibacter smithii is the prominent methanogen in the human gut, where it helps digest polysaccharides, or complex sugars."
Gut bacteria may decrease weight loss from bariatric surgery March 6, 2015
The benefits of weight loss surgery, along with a treatment plan that includes exercise and dietary changes, are well documented. In addition to a significant decrease in body mass, many patients find their risk factors for heart disease are drastically lowered and blood sugar regulation is improved for those with Type 2 diabetes.
Some patients, however, do not experience the optimal weight loss from bariatric surgery. The presence of a specific methane gas-producing organism in the gastrointestinal tract may account for a decrease in optimal weight loss, according to new research by Ruchi Mathur, MD, director of the Diabetes Outpatient Treatment and Education Center at Cedars-Sinai.
"We looked at 156 obese adults who either had Roux-en-Y bypass surgery or received a gastric sleeve. Four months after surgery we gave them a breath test, which provides a way of measuring gases produced by microbes in the gut," said Mathur. "We found that those whose breath test revealed higher concentrations of both methane and hydrogen were the ones who had the lowest percentage of weight loss and lowest reduction in BMI (body mass index) when compared to others in the study."
The methane-producing microorganism methanobrevibacter smithii is the biggest maker of methane in the gut, says Mathur, and may be the culprit thwarting significant weight loss in bariatric patient. Mathur and her colleagues are conducting further studies to explore the role this organism plays in human metabolism.
While that research continues, bariatric patients may still have options to improve weight loss after surgery.
"Identifying individuals with this pattern of intestinal gas production may allow for interventions through diet. In the future there may be therapeutic drugs that can improve a patient's post-surgical course and help them achieve optimal weight loss," said Mathur.
The study, "Intestinal Methane Production is Associated with Decreased Weight Loss Following Bariatric Surgery" was done in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic. The paper is being presented by Mathur Thursday, March 5, at the 97th annual meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Diego.
Many women opt for bariatric surgery in order to increase chances of maintaining a healthy pregnancy. A recent study suggests that weight loss surgery can help a woman do just that, but there are risks.
While the study found some risks for women who had surgery, including more babies born too small and a greater likelihood of stillbirths, experts said that overall the results were better.
The findings have implications for an increasing number of women and children, especially in the United States, where nearly a third of women who become pregnant are obese. Obese women have more problems in pregnancy, including gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and stillbirth. Their babies are more likely to be premature, overweight or underweight at birth, have certain birth defects, and develop childhood obesity.
The study, published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, sought to find out if surgery could safely mitigate some of those effects. Swedish researchers, led by Kari Johansson, a nutritionist at the Karolinska Institute, evaluated records of 2,832 obese women who gave birth between 2006 and 2011, comparing women who had bariatric surgery before becoming pregnant with women who did not.
They found that women who had had surgery were about 30 percent as likely to develop gestational diabetes, which can lead to pre-eclampsia, low blood sugar, birth defects and miscarriage. They were about 40 percent as likely to have overly large babies, whose challenges can include lung and blood problems.
The outcomes were worse in some categories. Women who had surgery were twice as likely to have babies who were small for their gestational age, suggesting the need for better nutrition for pregnant women with surgically-reduced stomachs. And more of their babies were stillborn or died within a month after birth, although the number of such deaths in each group was very small and might have been due to chance, experts and the authors said. There was no significant difference in rates of premature births or babies with birth defects.
The study via NEJM -
Maternal obesity is associated with increased risks of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age infants, preterm birth, congenital malformations, and stillbirth. The risks of these outcomes among women who have undergone bariatric surgery are unclear.
We identified 627,693 singleton pregnancies in the Swedish Medical Birth Register from 2006 through 2011, of which 670 occurred in women who had previously undergone bariatric surgery and for whom presurgery weight was documented. For each pregnancy after bariatric surgery, up to five control pregnancies were matched for the mother’s presurgery body-mass index (BMI; we used early-pregnancy BMI in the controls), age, parity, smoking history, educational level, and delivery year. We assessed the risks of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age and small-for-gestational-age infants, preterm birth, stillbirth, neonatal death, and major congenital malformations.
Pregnancies after bariatric surgery, as compared with matched control pregnancies, were associated with lower risks of gestational diabetes (1.9% vs. 6.8%; odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.47; P<0.001) and large-for-gestational-age infants (8.6% vs. 22.4%; odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.44; P<0.001). In contrast, they were associated with a higher risk of small-for-gestational-age infants (15.6% vs. 7.6%; odds ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.64 to 2.95; P<0.001) and shorter gestation (273.0 vs. 277.5 days; mean difference −4.5 days; 95% CI, −2.9 to −6.0; P<0.001), although the risk of preterm birth was not significantly different (10.0% vs. 7.5%; odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.78; P=0.15). The risk of stillbirth or neonatal death was 1.7% versus 0.7% (odds ratio, 2.39; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.85; P=0.06). There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of congenital malformations.
Bariatric surgery was associated with reduced risks of gestational diabetes and excessive fetal growth, shorter gestation, an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age infants, and possibly increased mortality. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others.)
PS. Post RNY baby is eight years and four months old now. She's fine.
Sometimes there are no words, yet there are so. many. words. It's hard to choose them.
Why is this a story? Why is it relevant?
Regardless of your feelings of Mama June's "parenting" for what it is -- or isn't -- (or why it is vastly different than yours or what you grew up with) this child is quite typical of an American Child.
Maybe she's an American Child times twenty plus some considering her life has been under a media microscope since she was very small, and she has been brought up to act for the cameras. What we see of this kid is so many of the things in our own children that are enhanced because cameras-in-her-face-act-more-goofy-we're-getting-paid for this.
And I know it makes you uncomfortable. (I know it does. That is why you watch it, or that is why you must comment about NOT watching because "That Poor Girl, Bless Her Heart!" Shut up.)
Don't pretend she isn't realistic -- kids with overweight and obesity are quite the norm. Even those with somewhat healthy, active lifestyles.
I used to get comments about my youngest ... "She's just like Honey Boo-Boo." I never really knew if those who said it meant that she was overweight, or hyperactive. Because all of my kids are diagnosed overweight or obese.
But I am not Mama June.
We do not eat like the Mama June household. But, that said, overweight still occurs.
I'd ask you to ask my youngest what her favorite food is.
It's gluten free organic vegan burritos. Thank-you. They are expensive, so if you'd like to send a case? PLEASE DO. I think they're on my Amazon Wish List. LMAO.
But why is it that her childhood obesity is a "problem" for us and requires an intervention a la The Doctors? Because the public consumed her lifestyle and promoted it by reality television? This child's weight is not our business.
A lot of it is probably our fault for promoting and exploiting it.
I've often wondered about this as a post WLS epileptic. Is there more I could DO to control my symptoms? I know there are quite a few of you out there - with or without deficiencies occurring along with your seizure disorders after WLS.