27 ms·

If I were morbidly obese I'd rather have an enema with a thin, healthy person's feces than have a surgeon cut me up and put a band around my stomach to reduce t

If I were morbidly obese I'd rather have an enema with a thin, healthy person's feces than have a surgeon cut me up and put a band around my stomach to reduce the amount I can eat. Am I the one that's weird? Or is it the doctors who see the fecal transplant as a last-ditch effort only after surgery?

eksith 13y ago
Holy Grand Poobah! I was just about to go out for lunch. I don't think you're unique in your aversion to the knife (I know people who have risked serious long-term health issues by avoiding surgery), but maybe not many people are weird enough to prefer the fecal enema.
SamanthaGray44 13y ago
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://www.cnn13.com http://www.cnn13.com
incongruity 13y ago
I'm with you 100% -- many bariatric surgeries discard parts of the digestive system – there's no going back (at this point). Given some set of safety precautions (HIV, Hepatitis screening, etc.), I think a lot of people would gladly try the fecal enema instead. I definitely would.
mahyarm 13y ago
I'd rather just force myself to 2000 calories a day before I tried even that.
- danielharan 13y ago
  If the culprit is bacteria, why torture yourself with starvation? People have gained weight on half as many calories. 2000 calories hasn't worked for a lot of people, perhaps because the gut bacteria is too efficient and the body alters their metabolism.
  - nanidin 13y ago
    So do you think people gaining weight on 1000 calorie diets could power my perpetual energy machine?
  - grannyg00se 13y ago
    Are you saying a diet of 2000 calories is starvation? But then you go on to say people have gained weight on 1000 calories. So how is there starvation involved?
    - anonymous 13y ago
      Yes. 2000 calories can be starvation, complete with feeling like crap, reduced mental and physical capabilities and the body lowering its metabolism to keep itself from getting thin. Also, even if you do lose weight by starving yourself (which is inevitable if you do eat little enough for long enough and don't die from malnutrition), you can't go back to eating enough to feel satiated, because you'll get fat again. You'll need to feel like you're starving for the rest of your life.
      - woofyman 13y ago
        For a 150 pound male who is sedimentary, approximately 2100 calories is required to maintain weight (American Cancer Society). While there are exceptions, most people who are overweight eat too much and exercise too little. http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Why-people-become-overweight.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Why-people-become-ove...
        beagle3 13y ago
        [citation needed] I know it's the prevailing wisdom, but I've never seen any study that actually supports that.
        zoul 13y ago
        You mean you need a scientific study to confirm that people who eat too much get fat?
jamesli 13y ago
It is exaggeration "by transplanting feces from thin people". It is for eye-catching. I believe scientists will strive to identify the bacterium or bacteria, grow and purify them in an emotionally-acceptable environment. The bacteria will be transplanted, mostly with some supplement for certain medicine purposes, not the feces.
- danielharan 13y ago
  There are already people doing that right now. No exaggeration. Google "DIY fecal" and it will auto-complete with "transplant".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Irene 13y ago
And if you are healthy and thin you can make money by donating it: http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/vol/4050676649.html http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/vol/4050676649.html
- idupree 13y ago
  I don't see "thin" in that description. (One can't infer it; "healthy ⇒ thin" is false. Do you have inside information on this study?)
wpietri 13y ago
Neither group is weird. It's totally reasonable for individuals to prefer a fecal transplant over surgery. But doctors are part of a complicated system that prevents wild-ass medical experiments from being tried on humans. If you go in front of a review board [1] and say, "Hey, we'd like to try experimenting on live humans by giving them an unknown collection of microorganisms in hope that unspecified good things will happen", I can't imagine that it will go well. Like it or not, the best currently proven treatment is the band. To prove that something else is better is a lot of work. I strongly share your suspicion that fecal transplants would be better, and if I were desperate that's what I'd try with my own body. But medical history is littered with treatments that looked promising but didn't work out, often because of hideous unexpected side effects. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board
- stretchwithme 13y ago
  Its also a system that sometimes takes forever to change even when there is evidence. I read recently that it took 25 years to stop x-raying pregnant women after a British doctor found that it lead to birth defects. And the unnecessary surgeries and medication and scans. I really find it hard to think of this as a conservative industry governed by "first, do no harm". These are all well-tested, according the establishment. Fecal bacteria may not be well tested by the establishment, but its something we have been living with for millions of years. Many animals are constantly exposed to fecal matter. And so are you if you ride public transportation. Maybe what this approach needs is someone like Craig Venter to sequence all the bacteria found in generally healthy people and people with specific problems. He did this in the oceans and found all this previously undiscovered genomes. That same tech could probably determine what strains of bacteria to start testing just from their absence in the unhealthy. At the same time, their presence in the perfectly healthy indicates that the bacteria in question probably isn't dangerous. Of course, how specific individuals will react is always an unknown. But that remains an unknown even after something is well tested. When I hear all the possible side effects of accepted drugs, which often include death, I have to wonder if there isn't some bias in favor of things created in a lab and where someone stands to make large profits. These drugs are recalled all the time and class action suits are common. None of this inspires much confidence in how treatments are evaluated.

eksith 13y ago

Holy Grand Poobah! I was just about to go out for lunch. I don't think you're unique in your aversion to the knife (I know people who have risked serious long-term health issues by avoiding surgery), but maybe not many people are weird enough to prefer the fecal enema.

SamanthaGray44 13y ago

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://www.cnn13.com http://www.cnn13.com

incongruity 13y ago

I'm with you 100% -- many bariatric surgeries discard parts of the digestive system – there's no going back (at this point). Given some set of safety precautions (HIV, Hepatitis screening, etc.), I think a lot of people would gladly try the fecal enema instead. I definitely would.

mahyarm 13y ago

I'd rather just force myself to 2000 calories a day before I tried even that.

danielharan 13y ago
If the culprit is bacteria, why torture yourself with starvation? People have gained weight on half as many calories. 2000 calories hasn't worked for a lot of people, perhaps because the gut bacteria is too efficient and the body alters their metabolism.
- nanidin 13y ago
  So do you think people gaining weight on 1000 calorie diets could power my perpetual energy machine?
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  Are you saying a diet of 2000 calories is starvation? But then you go on to say people have gained weight on 1000 calories. So how is there starvation involved?
  - anonymous 13y ago
    Yes. 2000 calories can be starvation, complete with feeling like crap, reduced mental and physical capabilities and the body lowering its metabolism to keep itself from getting thin. Also, even if you do lose weight by starving yourself (which is inevitable if you do eat little enough for long enough and don't die from malnutrition), you can't go back to eating enough to feel satiated, because you'll get fat again. You'll need to feel like you're starving for the rest of your life.
    - woofyman 13y ago
      For a 150 pound male who is sedimentary, approximately 2100 calories is required to maintain weight (American Cancer Society). While there are exceptions, most people who are overweight eat too much and exercise too little. http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Why-people-become-overweight.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Why-people-become-ove...
      - beagle3 13y ago
        [citation needed] I know it's the prevailing wisdom, but I've never seen any study that actually supports that.
        zoul 13y ago
        You mean you need a scientific study to confirm that people who eat too much get fat?

jamesli 13y ago

It is exaggeration "by transplanting feces from thin people". It is for eye-catching. I believe scientists will strive to identify the bacterium or bacteria, grow and purify them in an emotionally-acceptable environment. The bacteria will be transplanted, mostly with some supplement for certain medicine purposes, not the feces.

danielharan 13y ago
There are already people doing that right now. No exaggeration. Google "DIY fecal" and it will auto-complete with "transplant".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Irene 13y ago

And if you are healthy and thin you can make money by donating it: http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/vol/4050676649.html http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/vol/4050676649.html

idupree 13y ago
I don't see "thin" in that description. (One can't infer it; "healthy ⇒ thin" is false. Do you have inside information on this study?)

wpietri 13y ago

Neither group is weird. It's totally reasonable for individuals to prefer a fecal transplant over surgery. But doctors are part of a complicated system that prevents wild-ass medical experiments from being tried on humans. If you go in front of a review board [1] and say, "Hey, we'd like to try experimenting on live humans by giving them an unknown collection of microorganisms in hope that unspecified good things will happen", I can't imagine that it will go well. Like it or not, the best currently proven treatment is the band. To prove that something else is better is a lot of work. I strongly share your suspicion that fecal transplants would be better, and if I were desperate that's what I'd try with my own body. But medical history is littered with treatments that looked promising but didn't work out, often because of hideous unexpected side effects. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board

stretchwithme 13y ago
Its also a system that sometimes takes forever to change even when there is evidence. I read recently that it took 25 years to stop x-raying pregnant women after a British doctor found that it lead to birth defects. And the unnecessary surgeries and medication and scans. I really find it hard to think of this as a conservative industry governed by "first, do no harm". These are all well-tested, according the establishment. Fecal bacteria may not be well tested by the establishment, but its something we have been living with for millions of years. Many animals are constantly exposed to fecal matter. And so are you if you ride public transportation. Maybe what this approach needs is someone like Craig Venter to sequence all the bacteria found in generally healthy people and people with specific problems. He did this in the oceans and found all this previously undiscovered genomes. That same tech could probably determine what strains of bacteria to start testing just from their absence in the unhealthy. At the same time, their presence in the perfectly healthy indicates that the bacteria in question probably isn't dangerous. Of course, how specific individuals will react is always an unknown. But that remains an unknown even after something is well tested. When I hear all the possible side effects of accepted drugs, which often include death, I have to wonder if there isn't some bias in favor of things created in a lab and where someone stands to make large profits. These drugs are recalled all the time and class action suits are common. None of this inspires much confidence in how treatments are evaluated.