Number of Weight-Loss Surgeries Continues to Decline in Sweden!

midja

The trend of an increasing number of weight-loss surgeries in Sweden (where I live) has now definitely been broken. For the second year in a row, fewer and fewer people have undergone this type of surgery.

Those responsible for weight-loss surgeries want to make the claim that the decline in weight-loss surgeries is because other, more urgent, types of surgery are given higher priority. But perhaps the real reason is different?

Perhaps more and more people are beginning to question the health benefits of such mass and indiscriminate surgery. There is no disease where the surgeons operate. Healthy organs are cut out. Healthy stomachs and healthy intestines are surgically removed with disconcerting routine.

Solutions this extreme can’t be necessary for more than a small minority. There must be more natural solutions for most people.

Weight-loss surgery is the ultimate proof of how the health-care system has failed miserably to deal with the obesity problem – a panic button. It’s not a long-term solution and perhaps more and more are starting to understand this. If this is the case the decrease is good news!

More

Does Weight-Loss Surgery Make You Healthier? Maybe Not

How to Lose 112 Pounds with LCHF Instead of Gastric Bypass Surgery!

Obese Kids Going Under the Knife – for Weight Loss

Instead of Weight-Loss Surgery

29 Comments

Top Comment

  1. Molly
    Bariatric surgery is mutilation. I honestly believe that in a century we will look back on this as a form of foot binding.

    (Amusing side note - my spell checker didn't recognize the word "Bariatric" and suggested "Barbaric" instead.)

    Reply: #29
    Read more →

All Comments

  1. Molly
    Bariatric surgery is mutilation. I honestly believe that in a century we will look back on this as a form of foot binding.

    (Amusing side note - my spell checker didn't recognize the word "Bariatric" and suggested "Barbaric" instead.)

    Reply: #29
  2. Jeff
    It is so monsterous. I will remove your stomach to cure you. No different than a lobotomy to cure mental illness. I wish these poor overweight person would wake up. You are not weak willed. You are being poisoned by sugar and your pockets picked by the white coats.
  3. Galina L.
    I wish more attention would be brought to the difficulties of the people who experienced a massive weight-loss (not my case) and struggle to keep it off. Loosing weight by different tactics doesn't mean your won your battle. LCarbing at least has an advantage to keep the people who lost weight not hungry. My neighbor had a GBP surgery several years ago , initially she lost at least 100 lb, but now looks like herself before the surgery.Weight loss creates an altered hormonal state which is conductive to the weight regain. Then people start talking about how "metabolically broken" they are, claim that their thyroid stopped working because they are cold and sluggish all the time, while their state of health is absolutely normal from the physiological perspective - body is trying to return to the previous mass. I wish some standard blood test would be developed for the people in such condition, probably correcting their hormones would bring relieve to some.
    Dr. Andreas, do you observe any movement in such direction in Sweden?
    Reply: #4
  4. Paul the rat
    "...I wish some standard blood test would be developed for the people in such condition, probably correcting their hormones would bring relieve to some…."

    Hi Galina
    It is next to impossible to get funding or approval for such a study. From Pharma point of view "market" (i.e. people) is not big enough, which means not so big money.

  5. Mike
    I know two people who have had the surgery. Both were/are morbidly obese. Both lost a vast amount of weight after the surgery. And both have since re-gained a significant amount of the weight they lost.

    Both also tried low carb diets before their surgery but gave up within days because their doctors told them it was unhealthy.

    Sad.

  6. murray
    I saw Fed Up last night. The film follows the tragedies of several obese children in the 12-15 age range. in the film, the 15-year old boy goes in for bariatric surgery. Very sad.

    I found the film a bit scattered in its analysis. Sugar addiction is an early theme as a driving force of the problem. Thus addiction undermines willpower and exercise is insufficient. Food companies manipulate the addiction vulnerability. Good so far. One expert makes the point a bowl of cereal is essentially sugar in the gut, so you might as well have a bowl of sugar as a bowl of cereal, from an obesity perspective. Good point but it goes nowhere. The film gets obsessed about attacking food companies and accusing them of lying and sustaining a conspiracy. Kids are fat because Reagan cut budgets and school lunch programs evolved to serve fast food, especially pizza and burgers and fries. No explanation how this relates to the sugar addiction theme. The film accuses evil food companies of taking the fat from (impliedly healthy) skim milk and made cheese to sneak into pizza to make kids fat. One, you still need milk protein to make cheese, so the claim needs some explanation how cheese is made from just skimmed butterfat. Second, what has cheese got to do with sugar addiction? More telling was what was shown, which the movie seems to have missed: when the 12-year old girl (who weighed over 200 pounds and wept sadly over the ineffectiveness of her significant efforts at physical activity and inability to lose weight) filled her tray at the school lunch counter, she got a burger with a bun and a serving of fries. Was the film trying to be ironic? Her portion was not all that large for a teenager and there was no devil "added sugar." My LCHF movie buddy was softly chanting: "It's the carbs'; it's the carbs--eat something else!" So sad.

    My take is that the film was excellent for portraying the tragedy for kids. It was decent on showing how the government process is flawed by vested interest and political influence, and I would add, the inherently uncertain nature of genuine science. At some point people have to make judgment calls, but, in my view, politicians and bureaucrats want to use "science" as an argument stopper and so overstate what science actually says. The film descends into this by accusing food companies of lying, when it seems they are merely portraying the science (with its inherent uncertainties) in the way that promotes their interests. This is fine. Litigants do that in court all the time, but the judge has to exercise judgment to decide the case. Our political systems lack that judgment. the film insightfully emphasizes that politicians will remain ineffective until there is grassroots support to give the politicians the political capital they need to withstand lobbying and other pressure. My concern is that the conspiracy accusations and various inaccuracies will make the film ineffective beyond those already convinced. The theatre was not exactly filled up.

    I found Cereal Killers to be a much better production, as the metabolic analysis and intervention were much more clearly presented, and succeeded. Fed Up was strong showing the tragedy of the kids and ended on an unhopeful note, as none of the kids had any enduring success with their obesity problems despite their obvious strong will to succeed, the desire of the parents and the access to medical supervision, and a film production team where they purport to have revealed the cause of the obesity epidemic. If so, why didn't any of these kids have any success whatsoever losing weight? How could the film producers follow these kids and not reveal to the kids and their parents the cause of obesity as they understood it and let the kids continue to develop badly, filming a sad and frustrated obese girl ordering burger and fries for lunch at school near the end of the film? There was something creepy about that, creepy as in using the kids.

    Fed Up made me feel very sad for the kids.

  7. Eric Anderson
    a SUGAR-ECTAMY ((Compare pigs fed fat and protein to the standard pig chow VS SAD food))

    Sugar implicated in cardiovascular disease risk independent of weight gain
    Researchers from New Zealand's University of Otago have uncovered evidence that sugar has a direct effect on risk factors for heart disease, and is likely to impact on blood pressure, independent of weight gain.

    Research Fellow with Otago's Department of Human Nutrition Dr Lisa Te Morenga, Professor Jim Mann and colleagues have conducted a review and meta-analysis of all international studies that compared the effects of higher versus lower added sugar consumption on blood pressure and lipids (blood fats or cholesterol) – both of which are important cardiovascular risk-factors.

    They located dietary intervention trials published in English-speaking journals between 1965 and 2013, comparing diets where the only intended differences were the amount of sugars and non-sugar carbohydrates consumed by the participants, and which measured the effects of these diets on lipids and blood pressure. They found 37 trials reporting effects on lipids and 12 reporting effects on blood pressure. The findings from the individual trials were then pooled to determine the overall effects from all the studies.

    "Our analysis confirmed that sugars contribute to cardiovascular risk, independent of the effect of sugars on body weight," says Dr Te Morenga.

    "Although the effects of sugars on blood pressure and lipids are relatively modest, our findings support public health recommendations to reduce added sugar in our diets as one of the measures which might be expected to reduce the global burden of cardiovascular diseases."

    Dr Te Morenga says previous research showed that there did not appear to be any special metabolic effect of sugars making people more likely to gain weight on high-sugar diets compared with low sugar diets when the total amount of carbohydrates and energy remains the same.

    "However our latest study did find significant effects of sugars on lipids and blood pressure among these types of energy-controlled studies. This suggests that our bodies handle sugar differently to other types of carbohydrates."

    "We were also relatively surprised that there was a positive association between sugars and cardiometabolic risk factors given that a large body of the research which met our inclusion criteria is funded by the food industry. This is because such trials are less likely to find a significant association between sugars and health outcomes.

    "In subgroup analyses we showed that by excluding the trials funded by the food/sugar industry, we found larger effects of sugar on lipids and blood pressure."

    She adds that the release of their findings online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is very timely as national and international organisations are considering recommendations on safe dietary sugar intakes.

    "Our work provides further evidence to support these recommendations which have been disputed by the food industry," she says.

    While there is still a need for further longer term well-powered studies looking at the effects of sugars on various health outcomes, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the food industry to continue to claim that liberal sugar consumption is risk free.

    Dr Te Morenga says that anti-sugar researchers have claimed that eating too much sugar causes numerous harms, including cardiovascular risk.

    "But their evidence has been based largely on animal studies or highly controlled clinical trials involving unrealistic diets. However, until now the evidence relating to cardiovascular risk factors from sugar in human studies, and involving relatively normal diets, was hard to make sense of."

    ###

  8. Kat
    Murray,

    Thanks for the review. It was very helpful and the film sort of confirms my prejudices. It's all one giant discombobulated conspiracy for these journalists, isn't it? Basically, cheese isn't good for you, sugar isn't good for you and that's because the food companies are providing all of that and food companies (from whom you are not forced to buy) are evil. We should all be grazing on grass like rabbits, except that a.)kids won't go for it because they don't love starving and b.)there's no way to handle that much fresh produce for massive school systems (it's cheaper and better for parents to just handle that from home).

    After 1977, food companies followed the government guidelines. What choice did they have when their market began to follow the insanity and choose foods high in carbs and low in fat. I remember dieting with "snackwells" in the 1980's - a completely insane diet compared to what I ate in Europe as a child. I was never actually fat, but I white-knuckled by 20's and 30's. I used to set aside whole days where my fat intake was zero. Now my whole family has gone hclf and everyone is eating traditional foods again, feeling better and returning to normal weights or getting even more cut. Without hunger. Without suffering.

    School lunches were never "healthy" in the United States. The American government can't provide a sane math program for kids, let alone sound nutrition based on stupid guidelines on a massive scale. Thank goodness I see more and more in the press about the error of demonizing fat. Hopefully, people will now take it upon themselves to provide real nutrition for their children because anyone who thinks government is even capable of doing anything of real value for anyone but its select cronies is a fool.

    BTW, I also loved Cereal Killers. Very well done and, you know, stayed on point the whole time instead of meandering around pointlessly terrifying everyone.

  9. erdoke
    Basic concept is fine, but again, not really a LCHF:
    43:39:18 % kcals from carbohydrate: fat: protein
    More like a high carb medium fat... At least they should have maintained the same ratio from the HCLF (55-27), just the other way around.
  10. Paul the rat
    @ erdoke

    Agreed, however one needs to remember that we still live in "fat is killing us" paradigm - I can only imagine what loops and hoops these guys had to jump through for these research to be approved.
    (tell you what, Pharma and Carbohydrate industry is preparing to go to serious battle with low carb research. As we all know they do not want us to be healthy, not good for business).

    Replies: #13, #18
  11. erdoke
    OK, maybe I was too strict on them. We should learn to appreciate even small improvements.
    The funny thing is that even though still being high on carbs, already this change was enough to prove the concept.
  12. erdoke
    Paul,
    Is there some macronutrient distribution figure in the full text version? Based on the abstract it is hard to tell what they actually call a "moderate-carbohydrate" diet.
    Reply: #17
  13. Paul the rat
    Sorry, I thought that you can access full paper. It is not LCHF diet, however as we discussed above…

    Here is the diets composition:

    Diets: LGI (n=41) ; HGI (n=40); LF (n=40);
    Protein (total E%) 18; 18; 18;
    carbs 42; 42; 52;
    fat 40; 40; 30;

    Glycemic Index 34; 62; 65;

  14. tony
    You can include the doctor's industry. LCHF is bad for business.
    Reply: #19
  15. Dr. J

    You can include the doctor's industry. LCHF is bad for business.

    Now hang on, Tony -- as a practicing Family Physician, I can tell you most doctors/physicians are there to HELP people and not there for the money (because most of them could have chosen a MUCH easier profession and made a LOT more money for the time spent trying to heal people or keep them healthy).

    The problem is that many (possibly most) physicians are uninformed and not taught what a healthy diet is (perhaps one lecture in medical school) and haven't done enough continuing education to get an update (and unfortunately the usual sources still spew the usual low fat/high carb garbage).

    I prescribe LCHF for most (if not all) of my patients -- but there are still many people who have a hard time believing the updated/"new" (>150 years new?) information I give them is correct/healthy.

    It's going to take years, and likely decades for standard guidelines to change (basically waiting for the old guard to die off)....

    Reply: #21
  16. erdoke
    I have had moral concerns about spreading the word broadly from the beginning. The main question: Is there enough LCHF food available even for the more wealthy countries, so that everybody could afford living on such a diet? I believe the answer is no. What happens then with the poor? They remain fat and unhealthy anyway? Cheapest calories are still grain based and/or junk.
    It is not only the (processed) food industry requiring a huge turn, but many other areas as well, such as research, industrial biotechnology, etc.
    Reply: #22
  17. tony
    Dr. J (bb player?) I applaud you and congratulate you for your ethical practice of the medical profession. Unfortunately, in the USA where I live, doctors like you are few. The overwhelming majority of doctors cling to the low fat/high cholesterol theory, that has been thoroughly debunked.

    In addition, doctors here very willingly accept kickbacks from pharmaceutical representatives for over-prescribing medicines to their patients, medicines that would not be necessary had the patients adopted LCHF.

    Furthermore, it's not excusable to be derelict in your duties as a health provider because you are uninformed. As a health provider, just like any profession, you are expected to be current in your field.

    And you wonder why I believe the doctor's industry see LCHF as bad for business.

  18. Galina L.
    I believe everyone who wants to can afford eating a LCarb diet. The overall cost is pretty much the same, you spent more on meat, cheese and butter, but less on other foods, especially junk, snacks, store-bought beverages, even fruits and you have to buy less vegetables because you eat less often. Many also have less medical expenses o a LC diet.The most expensive way to eat in US - mostly organic vegetables and fruits and fish.
    If it were way more expensive that poor people couldn't afford it, it wouldn't be the good reason to avoid a no-grain diet for those who are well off or are willing to get such financial sacrifice due to health reasons and skip on entertainment or other expenses to compensate.
    Reply: #23
  19. erdoke
    I'm sorry if I was not clear enough.
    Actual cost of an LCHF diet consisting of good quality food ingredients might not be much higher than that of an average North American diet. However, if suddenly tens of millions of people started shifting diets, the food chain could get constrained to a level which would drive up meat, cheese, nut, etc. prices significantly or even dramatically. Then the rationale would be the same: the poor remained with less healthy alternatives. This is further amplified when you consider less developed regions where cheap calories are crucial to be able to feed the masses. Meat, cheese, butter, healthy oils and vegetables are anything but cheap calories for billions of people out there.
  20. Galina L.
    Erdoke,
    You underestimate market forces, usually people change their consumption patterns, and market reacts accordingly. Besides that, changes in food consumption almost never happen suddenly in the whole population, human population in US is not homogeneous about their food habits, and most people are quite conservative when it comes to food.
    I don't understand how the concern you expressed could be accommodated. Do you think that the diet which may be not affordable for poor people in a future should not be recommended now as the healthy one? It is life, some people have less , some more. Right now everyone can afford a LC diet, not necessary with highest quality ingredients like a grass-fed meat, but without bread, sugar and grains.
    Reply: #25
  21. erdoke
    There is no doubt a land use loss whenever a mainly plant based diet is converted to a mainly animal based one. Also, until we are able to grow healthy plant fats with same efficiency as unhealthy plant carbs, I see a good chance that demand can easily exceed supply. Of course this won't happen until vast number of people start pulling the plug on high carb, grain and sugar focused diets, but in a scenario where LCHF gains acceptance rapidly this actually could turn into reality.
    Reply: #26
  22. tony
    There is no land loss. On the contrary, land gain:

    http://freetheanimal.com/2013/03/sustainability-sushmainability-grass...

    The abundance of meat based on the above will lower prices.

    Reply: #27
  23. erdoke
    I really hope this is true, but even so it won't happen from one day to the other, following a potential quick acceleration of animal focused diet acceptance.
  24. Mike
    I can't believe how many people want to take a shortcut just to lose weight. Surgery is horrible and to volunteer for this is crazy. But some people will always take the shortcuts I suppose.
    Personally I always try to keep fit and use things like a good diet, exercise and even things like Yoga. In fact, I just started this program from Kris Fondran (shapeshifter yoga) which is great for anyone wanting to lose weight at home and tone your body. http://yourfatburningreviews.com/shapeshifter-yoga-review/
    I totally recommend it
  25. Calypso
    If a dog was overweight and its owner asked the vet to remove part of the dogs stomach and reroute the dogs intestines, the owner would be reported to the RSPCA/ASPCA.. if the vet agreed to do the surgery and practice found out, he would be struck off or misconduct... how come therefore that doctors who treat humans can mutilate people by doing gastric bypasses etc, and get away with it... its shameful!

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts