After a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes she decided, no doubt on "medical advice", to go for peace of mind to save potential harm of diabetes playing on her mind. Similar factors went into Angelina Jolie's surgery.
The difference is the extent to which Gabby's story is utterly contrived by those who've striven to deny even the most minimal means of making positive adjustments to metabolic function. Jolie was seeking to head off an increased threat of a real pathology-cancer, though there are arguments about that. Whereas Gabby is doing it to alter function the wrong way, as that's the only way available.
Everything that happened to Gabby was decided by ideology; being put on her first weight loss diet at the age of 6 by her parents, to the subsequent years of diet, regain, desperately trying to lose gains, until the (partial) nervous collapse of weight loss diet burnout.
With an often continual upward climb having to desperately embark on more wasted years often driving their weight ever upward, into the arms of mutilators.
The article says she'd been trying for 10 years to diet her weight down, as she's 33 that seems to mean she had a few years rest between burnout and that particular tranche of adult dieting career. That's how sane people can happily pay to have their healthy function butchered and feel better for it.
You can feel better for just about anything if what came before is made intolerable enough for you. Though how those falling for this hype will feel when they realise exactly what has been done to them is anyone's guess. My feeling has been the last to comprehend are likely to be the angriest, given what it takes [often unconsciously] to stay on board.
Gabby herself said this is a last resort, that it is any resort for is the decision of those who claim to care so much about health.
From gun to tape this cult has complete control over you and your life-as a fat person- even to the way you perceive the reality of that. No-one should have this much control, it is as corrupting as it is evidence of corruption.
Getting you to act against your own interests as your default position is why it is a cult in all but name.
Unlike fat activists I say the ace held is not fat phobia, it's blocking the science.
Obfuscation, half-truths, misrepresentation, tendentious interpretation above all, a hegemony of collusion..... It perhaps this along with the extent of mercilessness that may be what ensures they do not get away with this-forever. Using alteration of hunger/appetite as a selling point is all very well, but that helps to point out that cal res is a dead duck,
“My surgeon said they’d cut my stomach in half. This would limit my hunger and capacity to eat.My surgeon said indeed! Same old ob wallahs speaking through fat people with their script. Prioritisation of cal res decided the removal of stomachs, this as a side effect reduced the body's ability to generate hunger and changed the way appetite functions. That wouldn't happen if hunger was all in the brain/mind-which is the basis of cal res-which was the excuse for cutting the stomach out in the first place.
They should have started from the point they're selling this mutilation on! The whole cal res experiment-including dieting- has been a waste of time. They would have started from here if they'd had any real interest in actual physiology or an ounce of compassion for real people.
Metabolic function is designed to be altered. It has to all the time just for your body to be able to maintain itself. Its just those in this business prefer to do that what they feel like. And as long as there is no alternative, they'll be able to continue to do just what they can get away with.
Here's the DM's health correspondent,
...they work by restricting amount of food the stomach can hold. With less space to hold food, the patient will consequently consume fewer calories. It involves removing 80 percent of the stomach.Umm, not half,
"More importantly, the operation stablizes a number of gut hormones which are off-balance in obese people driving them to crave food when they don't need it. It also controls blood sugar levels....If it's more important cutting out the stomach would be superfluous. As for hormones being "off balance" and the rest of that tendentious nonsense is the case, why is cutting out virtually the whole of a healthy functioning stomach required to 'normalise'? Don't slim people [Gabby's unlikely to become that] have whole functioning stomachs?
And why do many people regain lost weight as their bodies heal and regain function.
So we can all agree, if you insist on reducing intake that dictates that you reduce/alter hunger function.
We can also it seems agree cutting a stomach out to achieve this has been an irrelevant detour....