Tuesday, 19 September 2017

Healers 4 Harvey – New Indie Music Compilation Supports Hurricane Victims

In the last few weeks we’ve seen incredible devastation from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and it seems like there’s more to come.

I know that many people in Houston are still struggling to get their lives back after Hurricane Harvey. So I’m pleased to be included in the Healers 4 Harvey compilation. It features over 30 songs from indie artists, mostly women, and all proceeds go to the Houston Food Bank, which is helping victims of the hurricane.

Please click below to buy the album for just $10. You’ll get a gazillion great songs plus you’ll be helping those in need.

And please use the share buttons below to get the word out on social media!

Side note: I decided to include my song, “The Waves,” because to me it reminds me of both the beauty and the fearsomeness of the ocean. I sing about frolicking, about being in love with the Atlantic, and the sunlight on your partner’s face, but also about the undertow, flimsy rafts, and the simultaneous feelings of peace and danger.

Want to be in the know about Golda’s shows, new releases and more? Click here to sign up for her mailing list and get a free download of her new, unreleased song, “Little Sister.”

Crossposted to www.thatgolda.com.

Healers 4 Harvey – New Indie Music Compilation Supports Hurricane Victims originally appeared on Body Love Wellness (http://ift.tt/GY7f6u) on September 19, 2017.



via Body Love Wellness http://ift.tt/2ybvWa8

Friday, 15 September 2017

PCOS and Endometrial Cancer Risk: The Dilemma of Weight Loss and Weight Cycling


September is Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) Awareness Month. As part of our ongoing series on PCOS, today we are going to talk about endometrial cancer.

PCOS is a hormonal disorder usually characterized by very strong insulin resistance. This insulin resistance causes many problems in the body, including irregular menstrual cycles, strong susceptibility towards weight gain, unwanted hair growth on the face and body (hirsutism), hair loss on the head (alopecia), cystic acne, body tags, a strong tendency towards diabetes, infertility, and many other symptoms.

Among other risks, PCOS is associated with a high risk for endometrial cancer (cancer in the lining of the uterus). Because PCOS tends to cause an irregular menstrual cycle, a woman's uterine lining may not get sloughed off each month. Some women with PCOS have extra long cycles (35 or more days), while others go months or even years without a menstrual cycle. This causes the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) to build up excessively; in time, atypical cells may develop. This is called endometrial hyperplasia, or overgrowth of the uterine lining. This hyperplasia can eventually turn into endometrial cancer.

This is why it is so important that women with PCOS get treatment. They need to have regular periods so that this overgrowth does not occur. There are many options for this, including progesterone treatmentsbirth control pills; insulin sensitizers like metformin, TZDs, or inositols; and androgen blockers.

However, most doctors' first recommendation is weight loss.

The Weight Loss Dilemma

The majority of women with PCOS have an "overweight" or "obese" BMI. Because of the very significant insulin resistance with PCOS, these women have a strong tendency towards weight gain over time.

Women of size with PCOS face a difficult dilemma in how they approach their weight. Care providers push them to lose weight, often telling them weight loss can "cure" PCOS or get rid of most of their symptoms. Weight loss is considered by many to be the first line of therapy for PCOS.

It's true that some short-term research does seem to suggest benefits from weight loss for women with PCOS, especially in shocking the system into ovulation. But this research is almost always based on fairly short follow-ups because most weight comes back within a few years after a significant weight loss. The very loss that leads to short-term benefits may backfire later into weight gain and worsened insulin resistance.

The critical question is whether women are better off in the long term trying to lose weight, or whether the high potential for weight cycling overcomes the possible benefit of weight loss. In particular, we need to know how weight loss and weight cycling affects the chances of getting endometrial cancer.

Here are two studies that demonstrate this weight loss dilemma. One study (Luo 2017) looked at intentional weight loss in "obese" women and how that affected their risk for endometrial cancer. (The study did not look specifically at women with PCOS but weight and PCOS are so tightly tied together that weight is a pretty fair proxy for presumed PCOS when discussing endometrial cancer.)

In the study, those women who intentionally lost weight lowered their chances for endometrial cancer. The effect was particularly strong in obese women who intentionally lost weight. So if  you can lose weight and keep it off, it looks like there might be some benefit.

However, remember that the majority of women who lose weight gain it back, and often end up at a higher weight than they started. In the Luo study, women who gained weight were at increased risk for endometrial cancer. So you take a calculated risk; if you lose weight and keep it off, you might significantly reduce your risk for endometrial cancer. However, if you regain that weight and end up heavier than you started, you probably have increased your risk for endometrial cancer.

Weight fluctuations up and down the scale may also have its own independent effect. The second study (Welti 2017) found that weight cycling 4-6 times was associated with an increase in risk for endometrial cancer. Many women of size cycle far more times than that; how increased is their risk?

Summary

High BMI women with PCOS face a difficult dilemma when deciding what to do to lessen their risk for endometrial cancer.

Intentional weight loss ─ if they can keep it off ─ might lower their risk for endometrial cancer. On the other hand, if the weight loss attempt leads to weight cycling and/or overall weight gain ─ as it does for so many ─ then that weight loss attempt probably actually increases their risk. 

In other words, high BMI women with PCOS are faced with a game of Russian Roulette when it comes to weight loss and endometrial cancer.  

There are no easy answers here. Each individual woman gets to make her own choices about weight loss as a treatment for PCOS, taking into account her own personal weight history and habits.

Although most doctors don't acknowledge it, it is a perfectly reasonable choice not to pursue weight loss as a treatment for PCOS. That doesn't mean that lifestyle is irrelevant. One can choose to emphasize sensible nutrition and exercise as a treatment for PCOS without measuring the worth of those treatments by weight loss. A Health At Every Size® approach can work for PCOS.

Care providers need to recognize that their constant pressure on patients to lose weight may actually backfire and create more risk rather than less. They need to recognize the right of the patient to choose whether or not to pursue weight loss, that it is possible to emphasize healthy lifestyle without tying that to weight loss, and to acknowledge the need for multiple tools beyond weight loss to address the unique needs of their PCOS patients.



References

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 May;26(5):779-786. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0611. Epub 2017 Jan 9. Weight Fluctuation and Cancer Risk in Postmenopausal Women: The Women's Health Initiative. Welti LM, Beavers DP, Caan BJ, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Vitolins MZ, Beavers KM. PMID: 28069684
BACKGROUND: Weight cycling, defined by an intentional weight loss and subsequent regain, commonly occurs in overweight and obese women and is associated with some negative health outcomes. We examined the role of various weight-change patterns during early to mid-adulthood and associated risk of highly prevalent, obesity-related cancers (breast, endometrial, and colorectal) in postmenopausal women. METHODS: A total of 80,943 postmenopausal women (age, 63.4 ± 7.4 years) in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study were categorized by self-reported weight change (weight stable; weight gain; lost weight; weight cycled [1-3, 4-6, 7-10, >10 times]) during early to mid-adulthood (18-50 years). Three site-specific associations were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models [age, race/ethnicity, income, education, smoking, alcohol, physical activity, hormone therapy, diet, and body mass index (BMI)]. RESULTS: A total of 7,464 (breast = 5,564; endometrial = 788; and colorectal = 1,290) incident cancer cases were identified between September 1994 and August 2014. Compared with weight stability, weight gain was significantly associated with risk of breast cancer [hazard ratio (HR), 1.11; 1.03-1.20] after adjustment for BMI. Similarly, weight cycling was significantly associated with risk of endometrial cancer (HR = 1.23; 1.01-1.49). Weight cycling "4 to 6 times" was most consistently associated with cancer risk, showing a 38% increased risk for endometrial cancer [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.76] compared with weight stable women.  CONCLUSIONS: Weight gain and weight cycling were positively associated with risk of breast and endometrial cancer, respectively. IMPACT: These data suggest weight cycling and weight gain increase risk of prevalent cancers in postmenopausal women. Adopting ideal body-weight maintenance practices before and after weight loss should be encouraged to reduce risk of incident breast and endometrial cancers. 
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 10;35(11):1189-1193. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.5822. Epub 2017 Feb 6. Intentional Weight Loss and Endometrial Cancer Risk. Luo J, Chlebowski RT, Hendryx M, Rohan T, Wactawski-Wende J, Thomson CA, Felix AS, Chen C, Barrington W, Coday M, Stefanick M, LeBlanc E, Margolis KL. PMID: 28165909
PURPOSE: Although obesity is an established endometrial cancer risk factor, information about the influence of weight loss on endometrial cancer risk in postmenopausal women is limited. Therefore, we evaluated associations among weight change by intentionality with endometrial cancer in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) observational study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women (N = 36,794) ages 50 to 79 years at WHI enrollment had their body weights measured and body mass indices calculated at baseline and at year 3. Weight change during that period was categorized as follows: stable (change within ± 5%), loss (change ≥ 5%), and gain (change ≥ 5%). Weight loss intentionality was assessed via self-report at year 3; change was characterized as intentional or unintentional. During the subsequent 11.4 years (mean) of follow-up, 566 incident endometrial cancer occurrences were confirmed by medical record review. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate relationships (hazard ratios [HRs] and 95% CIs) between weight change and endometrial cancer incidence. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, compared with women who had stable weight (± 5%), women with weight loss had a significantly lower endometrial cancer risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95). The association was strongest among obese women with intentional weight loss (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.78). Weight gain (≥ 10 pounds) was associated with a higher endometrial cancer risk than was stable weight, especially among women who had never used hormones. CONCLUSION: Intentional weight loss in postmenopausal women is associated with a lower endometrial cancer risk, especially among women with obesity. These findings should motivate programs for weight loss in obese postmenopausal women.



via The Well-Rounded Mama http://ift.tt/2wuVYUE

Saturday, 9 September 2017

Falling into Autumn

Some people revel in the change of the angle in the Sun.

I am not one.

The slanted, golden rays only remind me of hard times.

Whenver the bottom drops out, the shoe drops, it's fall.

Fall is full of falling apart, falling by the way side, falling ill.

Autumn sounds like a funeral drum for a hanging. au-TUM.

A relentless beat of time reminding me another year is gone.

These are my Summer years but I spend a third of them in the dark.

Shut the windows. Bar the doors. The reaper is coming.



via Fat and Not Afraid http://ift.tt/2eW70iU

Thursday, 7 September 2017

That Questionable “Fit and Fat” Study

fat people have the right to existA blog reader asked me to take a look at this study.  It’s another one of those studies that headlines claim prove that you can’t be fat and “fit” (we’ve been here before and it was crap then as well.)  Let’s talk about this:

First, they are making an extremely basic correlation vs causation mistake – the fact that two things happen at the same time does indicate that one causes the other.  (Short example – they are suggesting that if people with fatter bodies have higher rates of cardiac incidents than thinner people, then making fat people look like thin people will give them the same health outcomes. That’s not good science. For comparison: men with male pattern baldness have higher rates of cardiac incidents than men without male pattern baldness.  Imagine if, upon finding out that information, researchers did as these researchers have done and suggested that in order to reduce the cardiac incidents, we need those bald men to grow hair – then the government started a “war on baldness,” studies calculated the cost of “baldness” on society etc. In this case while there is a correlation, there is no causation – both the baldness and the cardiac incidents are caused by a third factor, but if researchers had treated baldness like they treat body size we wouldn’t know that.)

One of the measures of “unhealthiness” that they are using is “increased waist circumference,” so they are studying whether it’s unhealthy to live in a larger body and they are using having a larger body as a measure of  “unhealthiness.” You can do that I guess, but you probably shouldn’t call it credible research.

They don’t control for the negative health effects of dieting and/or weight cycling (aka yo-yo dieting) which the larger bodied participants can be much more likely to have engaged in. Let’s not forget that in a diet culture, whenever anyone studies the effects of having a larger body, they are also studying the effects of dieting since that’s what is encouraged for fat people in our culture.

They don’t control for the negative health effects of living in a society where larger people are shamed, stigmatized, bullied, and oppressed in a number of ways including a lack of evidence based healthcare (because of systemic fat bias as well as doctor’s individual bias and the tendency to prescribe diets to fat people when they would have given a thin patient an evidence-based intervention), being hired less and paid less than thin people and, as Peter Muennig from Columbia found in his research, just living in a society where one is stigmatized is correlated with many of the same health issues that this study used to judge “unhealthiness.”

One of the quotes in the article my reader sent says that “information on physical activity, smoking, diet and social status could be adjusted for.” Looking at the study while they claim to have “adjusted the data” it does not appear that they actually had this information from the study participants. This is important because studies that do include behaviors (including Wei et. al; Matheson et. al; and The Cooper Institute Longitudinal Studies) have found that behaviors are a much better predictor of long term health than is body size, so studies that don’t include participant’s actual behaviors aren’t really relevant and are either poorly designed, or specifically designed to get exactly the results that this study did. (For an exhaustive list of evidence around this, check this out.)

The conclusion that if fat people are in more danger of cardiac incidents then it’s “not ok to be fat” or that one should attempt weight loss is problematic on a number of levels. First, they are acting as if body size is something that we can control, but provide absolutely no evidence for that. (Hint: it’s because there is none. The research shows that the most common outcome of weight loss attempts is weight gain, and there isn’t a single study where more than a tiny fraction of people achieve long term weight loss and even among those the weight loss is often just a few pounds.)

Again, saying that if fat people have more cardiac incidents than thin people then we should try to make them thin, is like suggesting that if men have more cardiac incidents than women we should recommend that they go through sex reassignment surgery (note that this is not be the same thing as correctly recommending gender confirmation surgery that a trans person might choose.)

People are at higher risk for health incidents based on everything from genetics, to race, to height and more, so suggesting that we try to make some people look like other people to make them healthier is seriously questionable. (Speaking of race, I think we should stop funding studies that under sample and/or ignore People of Color.  For far too long studies like this have been allowed to act as if white people are the only people worthy of study, and that’s bullshit.)

I also noticed that many of the doctors quoted in this article and others seem absolutely giddy that fat people might diet sooner. I think that this is part of a (fatphobic) process by which scientists, healthcare professionals, and public health professionals are shirking their responsibilities to tackle the difficult things that would actually improve health – access to non-biased physical and mental healthcare for everyone, a good wage for everyone, enough vacation and down time for everyone, a world without oppression and more (these are often referred to as Social Determinants of Health.) Instead, these “professionals” shift the conversation to suggest that the “problem” is that fat people exist, and then they claim that fat people could be thin if we wanted, so they conclude that all the world needs to be healthier is just a little more fat-shaming and weight loss culture, which isn’t just lazy, it’s dangerous and wrong. We have to start calling them on this behavior.

More important than any statistical analysis is that health is a complicated, multifaced concept. Health is not an obligation, a barometer of worthiness, entirely within our control, or guaranteed under any circumstances. Nobody owes anybody else “health” or “healthy behaviors” by any definition. Fat people have the right to exist in fat bodies without shame, stigma, bullying, or oppression and it doesn’t matter why we are fat, what being fat “means” for our health, if we could become thin, or if doing so would make us “healthier” by some definitions. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not size (or health) dependent.

The conclusions being drawn here (that if fat people have higher rates of cardiac incidents then fat people should be eradicated – yes, eradicated is the right word) are sizeist and healthist and add to the stigma that negatively effects fat people’s health, includingthe suggestion of dangerous so-called “weight loss interventions” that include things like drugs, stomach amputation surgeries, and balloon swallowing, that end up killing fat people. So the most important takeaway needs to be that, regardless of what any study finds, it’s ok to be fat no matter what.

Want to create a world where researchers don’t call for the eradication of fat people? Join us for the Fat Activism Conference!

Click Here to Register for the Fat Activism Conference

The Fat Activism Conference is all online, so you can listen by phone or on your computer wherever you are.  Plus you get recordings and transcripts of each talk so you can listen and read live and/or on your own schedule. The conference is happening October 6-8, 2017!

If you enjoy this blog, consider becoming a member or making a contribution.

Like this blog?  Here’s more cool stuff:

Become a Member! For ten bucks a month you can support fat activism and get deals from size positive businesses as a thank you.  Click here for details

Book and Dance Class Sale!  I’m on a journey to complete an IRONMAN triathlon, and I’m having a sale on all my books, DVDs, and digital downloads to help pay for it. You get books and dance classes, I get spandex clothes and bike parts. Everybody wins! If you want, you can check it out here!

Book Me!  I’d love to speak to your organization. You can get more information here or just e-mail me at ragen at danceswithfat dot org!

If you are uncomfortable with my selling things on this site, you are invited to check out this post.

 



via Dances With Fat http://ift.tt/2wLTuCQ

Saturday, 19 August 2017

Be Principled Without Being a Sucker

I’m still pretty sick over Charlottesville, and right now there’s a lot of argument about the principle of free speech as it applies to white supremacists.

The “Unite the Right” rally was initially moved from downtown Emancipation Park to a larger park outside of downtown for safety reasons, but the ACLU challenged that. On free speech grounds, they made sure that the rally went on as planned. If it had been a peaceful rally, that might have been fine.  But the intent was never a peaceful rally. The heavily armed white supremacist groups surrounded a church, trapping people inside.  They stalked and harassed people. They beat them with pipes, attacked them with torches, and ran over them with a car. Richard Spencer described the rally as “a huge moral victory in terms of the show of force.”

Essentially, a violent white supremacist group conned the ACLU into supporting them with talk of free speech and peaceful assembly. My understanding is that between organizers making violent threats and public discussion of plans to come heavily armed, this should have been apparent to the ACLU. But whether it was or wasn’t, Nazis and the KKK did a bang-up job of using the banner of “free speech” to threaten and assault a lot more people than they would have if their rally had been in the alternate park, which wasn’t in downtown.

The ACLU initially claimed that it was in no way responsible for the violence, but later stated that it would start looking more closely at rallies asking for ACLU support and would not represent protesters who want to carry firearms. This seems pretty reasonable to me. The First Amendment includes a right “to peaceably assemble,” not “to show up better armed than the local police and beat the shit out of counterprotesters.”

It also seems to me to be an indicator of a lot of larger problems. One that’s been discussed a lot is the way Donald Trump is supporting and encouraging racism, but the larger problem I want to talk about is more abstract.  It’s basically this: No principle, no matter how noble, is immune to being abused by manipulative people. Abusers and manipulators of all stripes, from a controlling partner to someone who doesn’t want to pull their weight at work or school to literal Nazis and Klansmen who want to literally murder every Black or Jewish person in the country, are all really good at taking good things and twisting them.

To me, this means two things. First, the fact that something can be abused can’t make it bad, because *everything* can be abused. Secondly, having good principles doesn’t absolve you from being smart and savvy about how you adhere to those principles. If, for example, you work for the ACLU and are asked to defend a rally, do your best to find out whether these are people who want to peacefully express their ideas (good, bad, or genocidal) or a heavily armed mob intent on violence.

Or, to put it in D&D alignment terms, because I’m a geek like that, it’s not enough to just be lawful. Evil people will get your support for their evil by appealing to your lawful principles. If you want to be lawful good or even lawful neutral, you need to think really critically about the motivations of people who are trying to appeal to your principles.




via Kelly Thinks Too Much http://ift.tt/2v2IIXm

Wednesday, 16 August 2017

Fatshion: Palm Springs Looks

Hey friends. How are you all holding up? This is a tough time for the US (not that this is new but still). The alt-right fascist push-back we get from any progress we make is disgusting but not...

Read more here!

via Skinned Knees http://ift.tt/2vJsq6T

Saturday, 12 August 2017

VBAC Prediction Models: Actual Results are Better than Predicted

Original checklist by Melek Speros

Many women with a prior cesarean who want a Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) are counseled that they are not "good candidates" for a trial of labor because a VBAC Prediction Model suggests that they have a very low chance of VBAC "success."

In particular, the MFMU VBAC Prediction Model considers weight a strong negative predictive factor for VBAC. As a result, many obese women are told that their chances for VBAC are very low, implying they might as well just sign up for the repeat cesarean now. Many doctors strongly discourage VBAC in women with a high Body Mass Index (BMI). Some hospitals and practices even have BMI restrictions on who is allowed to have a Trial of Labor After Cesarean (TOLAC).

Similarly, many women of color are discouraged from pursuing a VBAC because they are told that they have a lower chance of success. Imagine the negative pressure against VBAC when these two factors intersect in a high BMI woman of color!

However, a recent study from UCLA actually examined how predictive this model was in their institution. They found that it was highly accurate for women predicted to have a very strong chance of VBAC. But to their surprise, they found it was NOT that accurate for women predicted to have a low or moderate chance of VBAC.

The difference was particularly striking for those predicted to have a low chance of a VBAC. 57% of this group actually had a VBAC, when only 29% were predicted to have one, nearly twice the expected rate. 

Of particular note, the authors also documented that, unlike the MFMU prediction model, neither BMI nor ethnicity were associated with lower rates of VBACs in their institution. 

This is especially meaningful to the many women of color and women of size who have been actively discouraged from pursuing a VBAC because of the MFMU prediction model. It also suggests to me that risk perception and the way women are managed in labor (higher induction rates and a lower surgical threshold are common in TOLAC in high BMI women, for example) may influence VBAC "success."

Personally, my VBAC prediction scores were extremely low (22%!) due to multiple risk factors, yet I went on to have not one but two VBACs. If I had let negative predictions discourage me, I would have missed out on my VBACs and their easier recoveries, and I would have been exposed to increased risk for placenta previa and accreta by having additional scars on my uterus.

I know from my work with the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) that many women are told they have a poor chance at a VBAC and yet go on to have a VBAC anyhow. In fact, few women meet all the "ideal conditions" for VBAC success, yet most will go on to have a VBAC.

If you have been told that you are not a good candidate for VBAC because of your BMI, your race, or various other factors, remember this study and the anecdotal experience of so many women in ICAN. It's okay to consider risk factors, but don't let them overly influence your decision. Group risk factors don't predict what will happen with any one individual. 

No one can guarantee you a VBAC, but neither can anyone reliably predict who will not have a VBAC when given a fair and adequate chance to labor. As the authors conclude in the UCLA study:
As part of efforts to safely decrease cesarean rates in the United States, patients interested in TOLAC (and their providers) should not be discouraged by a low predicted success score.

Reference

AJP Rep. 2017 Jan;7(1):e31-e38. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1599129. Validation of a Prediction Model for Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery Reveals Unexpected Success in a Diverse American Population. Maykin MM, Mularz AJ, Lee LK, Valderramos SG. PMID: 28255520  Full free text here.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity of a prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) in an ethnically diverse population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women admitted at a single academic institution for a trial of labor after cesarean from May 2007 to January 2015. Individual predicted success rates were calculated using the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network prediction model. Participants were stratified into three probability-of-success groups: low (<35%), moderate (35-65%), and high (>65%). The actual versus predicted success rates were compared. RESULTS: In total, 568 women met inclusion criteria. Successful VBAC occurred in 402 (71%), compared with a predicted success rate of 66% (p = 0.016). Actual VBAC success rates were higher than predicted by the model in the low (57 vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and moderate (61 vs. 52%; p = 0.003) groups. In the high probability group, the observed and predicted VBAC rates were the same (79%). CONCLUSION: When the predicted success rate was above 65%, the model was highly accurate. In contrast, for women with predicted success rates <35%, actual VBAC rates were nearly twofold higher in our population, suggesting that they should not be discouraged by a low prediction score.



via The Well-Rounded Mama http://ift.tt/2vsYWeT

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

“It’s Not a Diet It’s a Lifestyle Change” is Bullshit

Talking NonsenseYou’ve heard it. I’ve heard it. We’ve all heard it. Back in my dieting days before I did my research I believed it. The secret to lasting weight loss, they say, is that you can’t go on a diet, you have to make a lifestyle change.

This is total, complete, utter bullshit. It’s a lifestyle change alright – you change to a lifestyle where you’re dieting all the time, and it still doesn’t work.  One of the big issues that the weight loss industry has created is a world where any weight loss claim said with authority that sounds even remotely plausible is accepted and repeated as proven fact.  Even in the world of peer-reviewed research, incredible liberties are given to weight loss research when it comes to not have to support their assumptions with evidence.

I was on a panel at a very prestigious school for their Eating Disorder Awareness Week. At one point the school’s dietitian who was on the panel said that the reason people don’t maintain weight loss is that they lose the weight too fast, that you you should lose 1/2 pound a week and then you would keep the weight off. I wasn’t surprised to hear it, there have been versions of this going around since I was a kid.

I knew that the students at the school were super smart and data driven so I said “I must have missed those studies, , who conducted the research.”  She stammered for a moment, then said “Oh, there isn’t any research.” Had I not been there those students would have heard only from a professional dietitian employed by their school authoritatively telling them that they could achieve lasting weight loss by losing 1/2 pound a week as if she was stating a fact, despite having not a shred of evidence to back up her claim.

I think that one of the hardest things we have to come to grips with as we get off the diet roller coaster and start a non-diet path is the sheer number of times we’ve been lied to, and the extraordinary breadth and depth of people who have done the lying.  Some because they believe t the lies, some because they want to believe the lies (despite that fact that they’ve been weight cycling for years), some because they want clicks on their site and they know that anti-fat articles are always good for that, and many, many of them for profit.

I hear about far too many people who, on their death bed, regret having spent their entire life dieting. In order to break free of the diet and weight loss paradigm that holds us down we have to see it for what it is – a lie, created on lies, supported by lies, and perpetuated by those who lie for profit.  It’s a Galileo issue – the idea that anyone who tries hard enough to lose weight can do it is widely believed, supported fervently with religious zeal, and not at all supported by the evidence.

My life got better immensely and immediately when I stopped buying the lies that I could manipulate my body size, and that doing so was a worthy pursuit in the first place. When it comes to diet culture, that’s the only lifestyle change that I’m interested in.

Ready to put an end to diet culture? Then join us for the Fat Activism Conference:

Click Here to Register for the Fat Activism Conference

The Fat Activism Conference is all online, so you can listen by phone or on your computer wherever you are.  Plus you get recordings and transcripts of each talk so you can listen and read live and/or on your own schedule. The conference is happening October 6-8, 2017!

If you enjoy this blog, consider becoming a member or making a contribution.

Like this blog?  Here’s more cool stuff:

Become a Member! For ten bucks a month you can support fat activism and get deals from size positive businesses as a thank you.  Click here for details

Book and Dance Class Sale!  I’m on a journey to complete an IRONMAN triathlon, and I’m having a sale on all my books, DVDs, and digital downloads to help pay for it. You get books and dance classes, I get spandex clothes and bike parts. Everybody wins! If you want, you can check it out here!

Book Me!  I’d love to speak to your organization. You can get more information here or just e-mail me at ragen at danceswithfat dot org!

If you are uncomfortable with my selling things on this site, you are invited to check out this post.



via Dances With Fat http://ift.tt/2uFFsjy

Thursday, 3 August 2017

When Healthy Eating Is Anything But

Do I need to eat this-We live in a culture where people mistake the stereotype of beauty for everything from morality, to work ethic, to healthcare qualifications. One of the places this becomes the most apparent is in celebrity diet culture. There isn’t a single study where more than a tiny fraction of people have maintained any amount of weight loss long term (and even among those, the weight lost is incredibly small), but we’re supposed to believe that because someone is thin and talented, they hold the secret to weight loss and/or healthy eating — and let’s remember that these are most definitely two different things.

We also live in a culture that encourages us to have a seriously messed up relationship with food. Chips are a “guilty pleasure,” but baked chips are “guilt free?” Desserts are “decadent” and vegetables are “clean” (and I don’t mean given a good scrub in the sink).

I have seen “clean eating” defined as everything from a cock-full-o-meat paleo diet, to a vegan diet and plenty of eating plans in between. I’m “good” if I eat some broccoli, but “bad” if I eat it with cheese sauce.

Then there’s our society’s bizarre insistence that we make all food into a performance — from the obligatory “This is so much food, I could never eat all of this” we’re obliged to say when our plate comes in a restaurant, to our tendency to discuss why we are or aren’t eating a particular food (and I’m not talking about in the context of allergies or sensitivities). Or how many minutes on the treadmill we feel we have to do to “make up” for eating whatever we’re eating, how “good” or “bad” we are being with our food choices.

And we have these discussions with whatever rando strangers are also in line at Chipotle.

Combine those three things and you get the total cock up that is celebrity diet culture. In his piece “Clean eating websites like Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop ‘indistinguishable from pro anorexia sites,’” Dr Christian Jessen wrote:

Click here to read my full piece!

Ready to wave goodbye to celebrity diet culture and all the nasty stuff that comes with it?

Click Here to Register for the Fat Activism Conference

The Fat Activism Conference is all online, so you can listen by phone or on your computer wherever you are.  Plus you get recordings and transcripts of each talk so you can listen and read live and/or on your own schedule. The conference is happening October 6-8, 2017!

If you enjoy this blog, consider becoming a member or making a contribution.

Like this blog?  Here’s more cool stuff:

Become a Member! For ten bucks a month you can support fat activism and get deals from size positive businesses as a thank you.  Click here for details

Book and Dance Class Sale!  I’m on a journey to complete an IRONMAN triathlon, and I’m having a sale on all my books, DVDs, and digital downloads to help pay for it. You get books and dance classes, I get spandex clothes and bike parts. Everybody wins! If you want, you can check it out here!

Book Me!  I’d love to speak to your organization. You can get more information here or just e-mail me at ragen at danceswithfat dot org!

If you are uncomfortable with my selling things on this site, you are invited to check out this post.



via Dances With Fat http://ift.tt/2vlqL9G

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

Do Body Positive Spaces Have to Allow Weight Loss Talk?

What Will you DefendThis question comes up a lot in a lot of different ways.  For our purposes today “weight loss talk” includes any discussion of the desire, reasons, and/or process by which someone wants to manipulate their body to be smaller.

So, that brings us back to our questions: Do fat positive spaces have to allow weight loss talk?

Short answer:  No.

Slightly longer answer: Hell no.

Long answer:

People are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies – but that doesn’t make every choice people make appropriate for fat acceptance (or even the co-opted and watered down concept of “body positive”) spaces.

While no two oppressions are exactly comparable, as a woman who is both queer and fat, I liken this to someone who wants to have “reparative therapy” to try to become straight. They are allowed to do that, but they should not expect that discussion of their desire, reasons, or process of becoming not queer would be welcome in queer positive spaces. Similarly, it’s completely appropriate – and, in fact, absolutely necessary – that we have fat positive/body positive spaces that do not allow weight loss talk of any kind.

Social justice works in systems, and fatphobia is rooted in systems that include sizeism, healthism, and ableism. Health, ability, and body size are not obligations, barometers of worthiness, or entirely within our control. Insisting that they be prioritized and/or used to judge the goodness/worthiness of a body adds to oppression. The message that bodies are better if they are manipulated to be a different size adds to oppression. If we want to dismantle systems of sizeism, healthism, and ableism, then we need to vastly change the way we talk about size, health, and dis/ability and ending weight loss talk is a big part of that.

Ready for a world that affirms body of all sizes? Join us for the Fat Activism Conference:

Click Here to Register for the Fat Activism Conference

The Fat Activism Conference is all online, so you can listen by phone or on your computer wherever you are.  Plus you get recordings and transcripts of each talk so you can listen and read live and/or on your own schedule. The conference is happening October 6-8, 2017!

If you enjoy this blog, consider becoming a member or making a contribution.

Like this blog?  Here’s more cool stuff:

Become a Member! For ten bucks a month you can support fat activism and get deals from size positive businesses as a thank you.  Click here for details

Book and Dance Class Sale!  I’m on a journey to complete an IRONMAN triathlon, and I’m having a sale on all my books, DVDs, and digital downloads to help pay for it. You get books and dance classes, I get spandex clothes and bike parts. Everybody wins! If you want, you can check it out here!

Book Me!  I’d love to speak to your organization. You can get more information here or just e-mail me at ragen at danceswithfat dot org!

If you are uncomfortable with my selling things on this site, you are invited to check out this post.



via Dances With Fat http://ift.tt/2wkIivI

Monday, 31 July 2017

Obesity and Joint Replacement, Part 2: Does Losing Weight First Improve Outcomes?


We have been discussing obesity and joint replacement operations, specifically knee replacements and hip replacements, and the common practice of denying these to people of size.

In Part One, we discussed the highly questionable ethics behind denying "obese" people joint replacement operations or requiring that they undergo weight loss counseling or bariatric surgery first. These practices keep many people of size from accessing joint replacements and improving their functional abilities and pain levels, sentencing many larger people to the difficulties of dealing with mobility challenges and a poorer quality of life.

Today, we discuss the data on whether losing weight before joint replacement actually improves long-term outcome, as so many doctors insist it will. Up till now it has been assumed that it will, but a closer look at longer-term research calls this assumption into question. Indeed, several recent studies that suggest that losing weight before knee replacement surgery does NOT improve outcome and might even result in worse outcomes.

Does Weight Loss Before Knee Replacement Help?

Of course, some readers will be asking, why not consider weight loss? If it will reduce the physical load on the joint and lessen pain and wear, why not pursue weight loss?

The answer is complicated.

It certainly seems logical that it would be advantageous to lose weight before an operation to replace a weight-bearing joint. There would be less weight and therefore less force on the joint, right?

And to be fair, there's definitely research that shows modest improvements in functionalityjoint force load, and pain levels with weight loss in patients with knee pain.

However, like most weight-loss research, these studies usually follow patients only short-term so the usual weight rebound effect is conveniently overlooked or minimized.

Even studies that promote weight loss for knee osteoarthritis admit (my emphasis):
Whether substantial weight loss can delay or even reverse the symptoms associated with osteoarthritis remains to be seen.
In other words, they do NOT have long-term proof that weight loss improves outcomes; they just assume it does because short-term studies (often just a few months) suggest some improvement.

This is the problem with nearly all weight-loss research; it only follows the patients long enough to show some benefits of a quick loss, but rarely follow patients long-term because many of the benefits are lost and most of the weight is regained (and often more), and doctors don't want to acknowledge that.

Even the usual recommendation to "lose just 5-10%" of a person's weight is problematic. While some research indicates modest benefits, research is actually quite limited on the long-term effects of such a loss. And most dieters do not manage or just barely manage that 5-10% weight loss over time.

Reviews of long-term research shows that for most people, few maintain the weight loss over time, most of the weight loss is regained with time, and many people rebound to higher weights or greater abdominal fat than they began with. There are biological reasons for this weight regain; it's not just about willpower.

Furthermore, weight loss can present risks as well as benefits, frequent weight fluctuation can be detrimental to health, and intentional weight loss/"dietary restraint" is one of the strongest predictors of long-term weight gain.

As a result, some care providers are now recommending that obese patients strive for weight stability rather than weight loss, and that the emphasis be placed on improving health habits and health measures instead of reducing a number on a scale.

Unfortunately, because short-term research shows modest improvements in joint function with weight loss, doctors have extrapolated this to assume that significant weight loss will improve long-term outcomes for joint replacement surgeries. As a result, some deny joint replacement to people above a certain BMI, practically mandate attendance at weight loss programs first, browbeat their patients about weight loss, or strongly push for bariatric surgery instead.

But does weight loss before joint replacement improve outcomes?

Weight Loss Before Joint Replacement 

In two recent new studies, the common assumption that having patients lose weight before having knee replacement surgery will automatically improve outcomes is questioned.

In a California study, only 12.4% of more than 10,000 knee replacement patients studied and 18% of more than 4000 hip replacement patients  managed to lose at least 5% of their starting weight in the year before their surgery. Around 75% of both groups stayed stable. Those who did manage to lose weight before knee replacement surgery did no better than those who did not lose weight before surgery. They had similar rates of surgical site infections and re-admissions for complications.

This certainly calls into question how helpful weight loss supposedly is before knee replacement.

In a companion study, those who lost weight before joint replacement surgery and managed to keep it off afterwards actually did worse than those whose weight stayed stable. The weight loss knee replacement group had more hospital re-admissions than those who did not lose weight. Furthermore, the hip replacement group who lost weight had more deep-site surgical infections. The authors noted:
These findings raise questions about the safety of weight management before total replacement of the hip and knee joints.
Why this increase in infections occurred is not clear. One theory is that when people are placed on a significantly low-calorie diet, nutrition can be impaired. It is difficult to get the proper amounts of all the nutrients when caloric intake is too low, and diets for these mobility-impaired people are often quite low-calorie because increasing exercise is difficult. As a result, some people with significant weight loss or chronic dieting histories develop nutrient deficiencies, and these may impair immune function. Research confirms that people with nutrient deficiencies have a greater risk for infections and other complications after joint surgery.

So while weight loss may reduce stress on the joint, nutrient deficiencies from this weight loss may affect immune function and ability to "bounce back" after surgery, negating any potential benefits of weight loss.

Furthermore, many people who lose substantial weight before joint replacements gain back that weight and more after the surgery. The end result of weight loss before joint replacement may be that the patient ends up weighing MORE later on, as one study found:
A patient with [hip replacement] had increased risk of important post-surgical weight gain of 12% (OR = 1.12, 95% CI, 1.08, 1.16) for every kilogram of pre-operative weight loss...Patients less than 60 years and who have lost a substantial amount of weight prior to surgery appear to be at particularly high risk of important post-surgical weight gain.
Ironically, requiring or strongly encouraging patients to lose a substantial amount of weight prior to joint replacement may backfire and ultimately add to the patient's weight, not lessen it. Yet most doctors continue to demand weight loss before joint replacement. Only now the emphasis is on weight loss via bariatric surgery instead.

Quote from Ragen Chastain, found here.

What About Bariatric Surgery First?

Because bariatric surgery is one of the only ways to lose weight in the long term (though it comes with many other complications and ususally involves some weight regain), many orthopedic surgeons are forming de-facto partnerships with bariatric surgeons.

As a result, many people of size are effectively blackmailed into weight loss surgery by BMI restrictions on joint replacements. 

One study from the Mayo Clinic states, "Morbidly obese individuals with severe degenerative joint disease who are considered unsuitable for arthroplasty because of excess weight should be considered for bariatric surgery."

Another surgeon reports that he accepts patients for knee replacements up to a BMI of 50, but after that he refers them for bariatric surgery first. (Because it makes SO much sense for someone too "at-risk" for one type of surgery to undergo a different type of surgery instead.)

Yet the common assumption that bariatric surgery should be promoted because it would surely improve outcomes in "morbidly obese" patients with significant osteoarthritis should also be questioned.

Some research does indicate improved outcomes in those who had bariatric surgery before joint replacement. And one recent study that looked only at short-term (90 days!) complications found lower rates of complications in those who had had bariatric surgery. Of course, the media was all over this study and it has been widely cited to justify requiring weight loss surgery.

However, other research does not support better outcomes with bariatric surgery, yet the press conveniently ignores that. In one study, complications were actually higher in the group with recent bariatric surgery (less than 2 years). The authors concluded:
Bariatric surgery prior to TJA [Total Joint Arthroplasty] may not provide dramatic improvements in post-operative TJA surgical outcomes. 
In another study from a major research hospital, researchers found an increased rate of joint replacements in bariatric patients who had experienced large or very rapid weight loss. They noted, "These results contradict the tenant that weight loss is universally protective against arthritis and merit larger prospective investigations."

Another recent study did not find improved outcomes in those who had had bariatric surgery before joint replacement. Indeed, many had worse outcomes instead, needing more revision surgeries afterwards.

This was echoed in a recent large retrospective cohort study that found worse outcomes in the group that had bariatric surgery first, compared to high-BMI people who did not. The WLS group had more infection, pneumonia, blood clots, heart issues, revisions, and manipulations of the prosthetetic.

recent meta-analysis found no significant benefit from bariatric surgery before joint replacement. The authors concluded:
For most peri-operative outcomes, bariatric surgery prior to THA or TKA does not significantly reduce the complication rates or improve the clinical outcome. This study questions the previous belief that bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty may improve the clinical outcomes for patients who are obese or morbidly obese.
It may be that the potential benefits of reducing the load on the joint via weight loss from bariatric surgery may be outweighed by the nutrient deficits that are so common after weight loss surgery, even non-restrictive procedures. It may also be that the stresses on the body from rapid weight loss cause long-term damage to the body's ability to repair itself.

While some bariatric surgery patients have good outcomes and health improvement from the WLS, others have terrible outcomes, with significant nutritional deficits (sometimes despite supplements) and physical health problems. Some even die from the surgery or its after-effects. The problem is that you don't know which outcome group you are going to be in until after you've had the surgery. To strongly pressure joint replacement patients into bariatric surgery first means doctors are engaging in a high-stakes gamble with their patients' lives and quality of life.

And if joint replacement surgery at larger sizes is "too dangerous," why isn't weight loss surgery at larger sizes also too risky? Funny how patients are too fat for one surgery but surgeons can't wait to usher them into the Operating Room for WLS.

There are good reasons to question the common recommendation to have bariatric surgery before joint replacement. WLS is dangerous in and of itself, it often results in significant long-term nutrient deficits and other health problems, and it may not improve long-term outcomes for joint replacement.

However, as always, every person gets to make their own health decisions. Some people choose to have bariatric surgery before joint replacement and they have the right to do that. Others choose not to, and they also should have the right to do that. It's a choice with many pros and cons but one that should not be forced upon someone, which many doctors are essentially doing by denying joint replacement without bariatric surgery first.

In the past, care providers rarely studied whether or not bariatric surgery actually improved outcomes; they just assumed it will because it seems logical. But recent research shows there is good reason to question whether bariatric surgery really improves long-term outcome after all.

Mitigating Risk Through Better Management

Critics will no doubt point out that the risk for blood clots and post-operative infection are higher in obese patients and this is why they are concerned about operating on this group. This is true, and obese patients should be counseled about this fact. For example, one study found 6.7x the risk for infection in obese knee replacement patients, and 4.2x the risk for infection in obese hip replacement patients. The risk for infection is particularly strong among diabetics with a BMI over 40.

However, remember the dangers of using relative risk to discuss risk/benefit ratios; it can distort one's perception of risk. It is more helpful to use absolute numerical values so the magnitude of risks patients are assuming is more clear. One very large British study found that for knee replacements, risk for blood clots was increased from 2.0% to 3.3% and risk for infection from 3.0% to 4.1%, in obese patients with total knee replacements. For hip replacements, the risk for blood clots was increased from 2.2% to 3.3% and the risk for infection from 1.6% to 3.5% in obese patients. The authors noted (my emphasis):
Whilst an increased risk of wound infection and DVT/PE was observed amongst obese patients, absolute risks remain low and no such association was observed for MI, stroke and mortality.
However, the most important thing to point out is that an increased infection and clotting risk may be at least partly due to mismanagement of obese patients. Re-examining and changing the management protocols of these patients may improve outcomes independent of weight loss. 

For example, research shows that obese patients are chronically under-dosed with many medications. This is particularly relevant in antibiotics for preventing and treating infections, and in thromboprophylaxis medications for preventing blood clots after surgery. In other words, the two biggest risks of surgery in high-BMI patients may actually be largely preventable.

Obese patients, especially "morbidly-obese" (BMI 40+) and "super-obese" (BMI 50+) patients, are at particular risk for infections and may require larger initial antibiotic dosesextended or more frequent dosing regimens, use of more than one type of antibiotic, and perhaps topical infusions of antibiotics during surgery. This may help reduce their increased risk for infection after joint replacement surgery.

One recent study on infection in obese joint replacement patients strongly raised this issue of antibiotic underdosing. The authors found that above 100 kg (~220 lbs.), the rate of infections rose strongly. They noted that most patients in the study, regardless of BMI, were treated with a uniform dose (1.5g) of pre-op antibiotics and speculated that an increased antibiotic dose would help lower the rate of infections in this group. They stated:
The link between obesity and infection may be explained by several factors, but under-dosing of antibiotics is probably the most important to consider.
They also noted that noted that research examining the question of proper antibiotic dosage for obese patients undergoing joint replacement surgery was lacking. The problem of underdosing antibiotics in obese patients has been acknowledged in obstetric and bariatric surgery for several years. Why is it only NOW being brought up in orthopedic surgery?

Underdosing issues go beyond antibiotics. Research suggests that many obese patients are under-dosed with anti-clotting agents like heparin. One study found that weight-adjusted dosing cut the rate of blood clots in obese patients after surgery from 2.0% to 0.54% without increasing the risk for bleeding. Another study found that an extended prophylaxis period of anti-clotting agents lowered the risk for clots significantly, also without increasing bleeding.

Other surgical management protocols for obese patient need review as well. Some research suggests that surgical drains, often placed prophylactically in obese patients, have no benefit or may actually do more harm than good. Although further research is needed, one research review suggested omitting routine surgical drains in obese patients during joint replacement surgery.

As noted previously, another very interesting set of recent studies suggests that "morbid obesity" is less important that serum albumin levels on major complications like mortality and infections in joint replacement surgery. Serum albumin levels are an indicator of liver and kidney function but can also indicate nutrition status; obese people may be more at risk for malnutrition because of chronic dieting, highly restrictive intakes, or malabsorptive procedures like gastric bypass. Improving joint replacement outcomes might need to focus on measuring and fixing albumin levels and other nutrient deficits before surgery.

Bottom line, if the real concern is preventing poor outcomes, then perhaps the best approach is not to deny all high-BMI patients access to this surgery, but rather to lower morbidity by improving care for them instead via:
  • Utilizing weight-based dosing more uniformly in antibiotics and blood clot prevention drugs 
  • Using extended, adjunctive or more frequent antibiotic dosing regimens 
  • Avoiding routine prophylactic surgical drains 
  • Screening for and optimizing albumin and other nutrient levels before surgery
Ironically, a lot of the research on improving surgical outcomes in very obese patients is only done with bariatric surgery. It is past time to improve outcomes in high-BMI people in other types of surgery as well, including joint replacement surgery, instead of having to just extrapolate from bariatric surgery studies.

We need to know through evidence-based trials what the best protocols are for obese people undergoing joint replacement surgery. And in order to do that, we need for people of size to actually be given access to this surgery.

Summary

Sadly, even today, many orthopedic surgeons refuse to do knee replacements or hip replacements on anyone with a BMI over 35 or over 40 (or sometimes less).  In many places in the U.K., for example, people with a BMI over 35 have been routinely denied joint replacements and other surgeries. Some even deny joint replacements to those with a BMI over 30.

They do this because surgery is more technically challenging in very heavy people and because they view obesity as a voluntary condition brought on by poor lifestyle choices. They feel that losing weight is mostly a matter of willpower and choices, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, and they feel they are doing their patients a favor by making them lose weight.

Surgeons also justify BMI restrictions by pointing out the short-term risks associated with orthopedic surgery in high-BMI people. They suggest that higher complication rates and somewhat lower functional outcomes justify denying surgery to this group and/or requiring weight loss or even bariatric surgery before joint replacement.

However, other surgeons are questioning the ethics of denying joint replacement surgery to high-BMI patients. They note that even very fat patients usually have good long-term outcomes from the surgery.

They recognize that the tremendous improvement in mobilityquality of lifeknee function, and pain relief is worth the trade-off of a potentially increased risk for mild short-term morbidity. Many are willing to proceed with joint replacement surgery in high-BMI patients as long as they have been given informed consent about the benefits and risks.

It is reasonable to counsel obese patients about the potential risks of a higher weight before surgery, especially if they have co-morbidities like diabetes. However, the counseling should cover both risks and benefits. It should acknowledge that the magnitude of risk is relatively modest in most obese patients and that most have very good long-term results from both knee replacement surgery and hip replacement surgery.

Patients can also be counseled about the potential benefits of weight loss before joint replacement surgery, as long as the data used is realistic and the potential risks of weight loss are also covered. But weight loss should not be required in order to access such surgery because research is contradictory on whether this is helpful. Short-term research shows some benefits, but longer-term research shows little benefit and sometimes even harm. Furthermore, the risks of weight loss, yo-yo dieting, and bariatric surgery should not be overlooked. More research is needed, but requiring weight loss before surgery is certainly not evidence-based. The truth is that the evidence is mixed and the choice should be left to the patient.

Joint replacement surgery in very obese patients is technically harder and does carry risks. However, the magnitude of this risk is modest and the potential for improvement in quality of life is very strong. Restricting high-BMI people from joint replacement surgery or requiring them to lose weight in order to access this surgery is NOT justified or ethical.

Rather, the risks are a call to surgeons to further examine the long-overlooked issue of how they manage obese patients. Risks can most likely be mitigated by proper medication dosing and more optimal surgical management of high-BMI patients.

Instead of restricting joint replacement or requiring weight loss in high BMI patients, orthopedic surgeons should be focusing on how they can improve outcomes in this group through modifications to surgical management protocols.


References

General Information about Joint Replacement

Weight Loss Before Joint Replacement

Bone Joint J. 2014 May;96-B(5):629-35. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B5.33136. The risk of surgical site infection and re-admission in obese patients undergoing total joint replacement who lose weight before surgery and keep it off post-operatively. Inacio MC, Kritz-Silverstein D, Raman R, Macera CA, Nichols JF, Shaffer RA, Fithian DC. PMID: 24788497
This study evaluated whether obese patients who lost weight before their total joint replacement and kept it off post-operatively were at lower risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and re-admission compared with those who remained the same weight. We reviewed 444 patients who underwent a total hip replacement and 937 with a total knee replacement who lost weight pre-operatively and sustained their weight loss after surgery. After adjustments, patients who lost weight before a total hip replacement and kept it off post-operatively had a 3.77 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 8.95) greater likelihood of deep SSIs and those who lost weight before a total knee replacement had a 1.63 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.28) greater likelihood of re-admission compared with the reference group. These findings raise questions about the safety of weight management before total replacement of the hip and knee joints.
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Mar;29(3):458-64.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.030. Epub 2013 Sep 7. The impact of pre-operative weight loss on incidence of surgical site infection and readmission rates after total joint arthroplasty. Inacio MC, Kritz-Silverstein D, Raman R, Macera CA, Nichols JF, Shaffer RA, Fithian DC. PMID: 24018161
This study characterized a cohort of obese total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients (1/1/2008-12/31/2010) and evaluated whether a clinically significant amount of pre-operative weight loss (5% decrease in body weight) is associated with a decreased risk of surgical site infections (SSI) and readmissions post-surgery. 10,718 TKAs and 4066 THAs were identified. During the one year pre-TKA 7.6% of patients gained weight, 12.4% lost weight, and 79.9% remained the same. In the one year pre-THA, 6.3% of patients gained weight, 18.0% lost weight, and 75.7% remained the same. In TKAs and THAs, after adjusting for covariates, the risk of SSI and readmission was not significantly different in the patients who gained or lost weight pre-operatively compared to those who remained the same.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Jan;21(1):35-43. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.09.010. Epub 2012 Oct 6.
Clinically important body weight gain following total hip arthroplasty: a cohort study with 5-year follow-up. Riddle DL, Singh JA, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD, Lewallen DG. PMID: 23047011
...DESIGN: We used multi-variable logistic regression to compare data from one of the largest US-based THA registries to a population-based control sample from the same geographic region. We also identified factors that increased risk of clinically important weight gain specifically among persons undergoing THA. The outcome measure of interest was weight gain of ≥5% of body weight up to 5 years following surgery. RESULTS: ...A patient with THA had increased risk of important post-surgical weight gain of 12% (OR = 1.12, 95% CI, 1.08, 1.16) for every kilogram of pre-operative weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: While findings should be interpreted with caution because of missing follow-up weight data, patients with THA appear to be at increased risk of clinically important weight gain following surgery as compared to peers. Patients less than 60 years and who have lost a substantial amount of weight prior to surgery appear to be at particularly high risk of important post-surgical weight gain. 
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 May;65(5):669-77. doi: 10.1002/acr.21880. Clinically important body weight gain following knee arthroplasty: a five-year comparative cohort study. Riddle DL, Singh JA, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD, Lewallen DG. PMID: 23203539
...METHODS: We used one of the largest US-based knee arthroplasty registries and a population-based control sample from the same geographic region to determine whether knee arthroplasty increases the risk of clinically important weight gain of ≥5% of baseline body weight over a 5-year postoperative period. RESULTS: Of the persons in the knee arthroplasty sample, 30.0% gained ≥5% of baseline body weight 5 years following surgery as compared to 19.7% of the control sample. The multivariable-adjusted (age, sex, body mass index, education, comorbidity, and presurgical weight change) odds ratio (OR) was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-2.2) in persons with knee arthroplasty as compared to the control sample. Additional arthroplasty procedures during followup further increased the risk for weight gain (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.1) relative to the control sample. Specifically, among patients with knee arthroplasty, younger patients and those who lost greater amounts of weight in the 5-year preoperative period were at greater risk for clinically important weight gain. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo knee arthroplasty are at an increased risk of clinically important weight gain following surgery. The findings potentially have broad implications to multiple members of the health care team. Future research should develop weight loss/maintenance interventions particularly for younger patients who have lost a substantial amount of weight prior to surgery, as they are most at risk for substantial postsurgical weight gain.
Bariatric Surgery Before Joint Replacement 

Bone Joint J. 2015 Nov;97-B(11):1501-5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.36477. Bariatric surgery does not improve outcomes in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Martin JR, Watts CD, Taunton MJ. PMID: 26530652
Bariatric surgery has been advocated as a means of reducing body mass index (BMI) and the risks associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, this has not been proved clinically. In order to determine the impact of bariatric surgery on the outcome of TKA, we identified a cohort of 91 TKAs that were performed in patients who had undergone bariatric surgery (bariatric cohort). These were matched with two separate cohorts of patients who had not undergone bariatric surgery. One was matched 1:1 with those with a higher pre-bariatric BMI (high BMI group), and the other was matched 1:2 based on those with a lower pre-TKA BMI (low BMI group). In the bariatric group, the mean BMI before bariatric surgery was 51.1 kg/m(2) (37 to 72), which improved to 37.3 kg/m(2) (24 to 59) at the time of TKA. Patients in the bariatric group had a higher risk of, and worse survival free of re-operation (hazard ratio (HR) 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2 to 6.2; p = 0.02) compared with the high BMI group. Furthermore, the bariatric group had a higher risk of, and worse survival free of re-operation (HR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.3; p = 0.2) and revision (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 6.5; p = 0.04) compared with the low BMI group. While bariatric surgery reduced the BMI in our patients, more analysis is needed before recommending bariatric surgery before TKA in obese patients.
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9 Suppl):207-11. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.075. Epub 2016 Mar 15. Lingering Risk: Bariatric Surgery Before Total Knee Arthroplasty. Nickel BT, Klement MR, Penrose CT, Green CL, Seyler TM, Bolognesi MP. PMID: 27179771
...METHODS: A total of 39,014 patients were identified in a claim-based review of the entire Medicare database with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify patients in 3 groups. Patients who underwent BS before total knee arthroplasty (group I: 5914 experimental group) and 2 control groups that did not undergo BS but had either a body mass index >40 (group II: 6480 bariatric control) or <25 (group III: 26,616 normal weight control)...RESULTS: ...Medical and surgical complication incidences were greatest in group I including: 4.98% deep vein thrombosis; 5.31% pneumonia; 10.09% heart failure; and 2-year infection, revision, and manipulation rates of 5.8%, 7.38%, and 3.13%, respectively. These values were significant elevation compared to III and slightly greater than II. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that BS before total knee arthroplasty is associated with greater risk compared to both nonobese and obese patients. This is possibly due to a higher incidence of medical or psychiatric comorbidities determined in the Medicare BS patients, wound healing difficulties secondary to gastrointestinal malabsorption, malnourishment from prolonged catabolic state, rapid weight loss before surgery, and/or age.
Bone Joint J. 2016 Sep;98-B(9):1160-6. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B9.38024. Does bariatric surgery prior to total hip or knee arthroplasty reduce post-operative complications and improve clinical outcomes for obese patients? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Smith TO, Aboelmagd T, Hing CB, MacGregor A. PMID: 27587514
AIMS: Our aim was to determine whether, based on the current literature, bariatric surgery prior to total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduces the complication rates and improves the outcome following arthroplasty in obese patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken of published and unpublished databases on the 5 November 2015...RESULTS: From 156 potential studies, five were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the study. A total of 23 348 patients (657 who had undergone bariatric surgery, 22 691 who had not) were analysed. The evidence-base was moderate in quality. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes such as superficial wound infection (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 0.37), deep wound infection (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.66), DVT (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.44), PE (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.03 to 8.26), revision surgery (RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.05) or mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.16 to 9.89) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For most peri-operative outcomes, bariatric surgery prior to THA or TKA does not significantly reduce the complication rates or improve the clinical outcome. This study questions the previous belief that bariatric surgery prior to arthroplasty may improve the clinical outcomes for patients who are obese or morbidly obese. This finding is based on moderate quality evidence. 
Other Possible Factors

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct;473(10):3163-72. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4333-7. Epub 2015 May 21. Low Albumin Levels, More Than Morbid Obesity, Are Associated With Complications After TKA. Nelson CL1, Elkassabany NM, Kamath AF, Liu J. PMID: 25995174
BACKGROUND: Morbid obesity and malnutrition are thought to be associated with more frequent perioperative complications after TKA. However, morbid obesity and malnutrition often are co-occurring conditions. Therefore it is important to understand whether morbid obesity, malnutrition, or both are independently associated with more frequent perioperative complications...METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was analyzed from 2006 to 2013. Patients were grouped as morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m(2)) or nonmorbidly obese (BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m(2) to < 40 kg/m(2)), or by low serum albumin (serum albumin level < 3.5 mg/dL) or normal serum albumin (serum albumin level ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)...RESULTS: Mortality was not increased in the morbidly obese group (0.14% vs 0.14%; p = 0.942)...The group with low serum albumin had higher mortality than the group with normal serum albumin (0.64% vs 0.15%; OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.58-6.35; p =0.001)... CONCLUSIONS: Morbid obesity is not independently associated with the majority of perioperative complications measured by the NSQIP and was associated only with increases in progressive renal insufficiency, superficial surgical site infection, and sepsis among the 21 perioperative variables measured. However, low serum albumin was associated with increased mortality and multiple additional major perioperative complications after TKA. Low serum albumin, more so than morbid obesity, is associated with major perioperative complications. This is an important finding, as low serum albumin may be more modifiable than morbid obesity in patients who are immobile or have advanced knee osteoarthritis.
HSS J. 2017 Feb;13(1):66-74. doi: 10.1007/s11420-016-9518-4. Epub 2016 Aug 16. Hypoalbuminemia Is a Better Predictor than Obesity of Complications After Total Knee Arthroplasty: a Propensity Score-Adjusted Observational Analysis. Fu MC, McLawhorn AS, Padgett DE, Cross MB. PMID: 2816787
...METHODS: TKA cases were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2005 to 2013... Malnutrition was defined as hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL). Patients were classified by BMI as follows: non-obese (18.5-29.9), obese I (30-34.9), obese II (35-39.9), or obese III (≥40). Postoperative complications were compared across obesity and nutritional statuses. Multivariable propensity-adjusted logistic regressions were performed to determine associations between malnutrition, obesity, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: There were 71,599 cases identified, with 34,800 (48.6%) having albumin measurements...Malnutrition prevalence increased with BMI (6.1% in obese III vs. 3.7% in non-obese). With propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis, obese III was the only obesity class associated with any complication, wound complication, and reoperation. Hypoalbuminemia was a stronger and more consistent independent risk factor, for any complication, wound, cardiac, or respiratory complications, and death. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoalbuminemia is a more consistent independent predictor of complications after TKA than obesity. Strategies for medical optimization of these conditions should be investigated.
Antibiotic Dosing and Surgical Infections

Acta Orthop. 2016;87(2):132-8. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1126157. Epub 2016 Jan 5. Body mass and weight thresholds for increased prosthetic joint infection rates after primary total joint arthroplasty. Lübbeke A1, Zingg M1, Vu D2, Miozzari HH1, Christofilopoulos P1, Uçkay I1,2, Harbarth S3, Hoffmeyer P1. PMID: 26731633
...We included all 9,061 primary hip and knee arthroplasties (mean age 70 years, 61% women) performed between March 1996 and December 2013 where the patient had received intravenous cefuroxime (1.5 g) perioperatively. The main exposures of interest were BMI (5 categories: < 24.9, 25-29.9, 30-34.9, 35-39.9, and ≥ 40) and weight (5 categories: < 60, 60-79, 80-99, 100-119, and ≥ 120 kg). Numbers of TJAs according to BMI categories (lowest to highest) were as follows: 2,956, 3,350, 1,908, 633, and 214, respectively. The main outcome was prosthetic joint infection. The mean follow-up time was 6.5 years (0.5-18 years). RESULTS: 111 prosthetic joint infections were observed: 68 postoperative, 16 hematogenous, and 27 of undetermined cause. Incidence rates were similar in the first 3 BMI categories (< 35), but they were twice as high with BMI 35-39.9 (adjusted HR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1-4.3) and 4 times higher with BMI ≥ 40 (adjusted HR = 4.2, 95% CI: 1.8-9.7). Weight ≥ 100 kg was identified as threshold for a significant increase in infection from the early postoperative period onward (adjusted HR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.3-3.6). INTERPRETATION: BMI ≥ 35 or weight ≥ 100 kg may serve as a cutoff for higher perioperative dosage of antibiotics.
Media Articles on Joint Replacement Restrictions on BMI











via The Well-Rounded Mama http://ift.tt/2uP70Xk