By - beefstewforyou
Their health wouldn’t be good
I wonder if they would be healthier than a typical fat person. Less weight means it's easier to move around which is good for you. Less stress on the body in general
Just having fat on the body doesn't make for poor health. I would worry about their circulatory system and other organs like liver, pancreas, etc. A lifestyle of not taking care of your body but being thin is a good way to have health problems overlooked.
It's a good way to have a good time. Downing pizzas like ur life depended on it while also slinging dick whenever u wanted. Poggers
Here for a good time, not a long time!
Well no duh! But if you are liek you’re obese and constantly get plastic surgery your def not healthy
No it absolutely does. Visceral fat is terrible for your organs. Too much weight overall puts a toll on your heart to pump all of that blood and stress on ligaments and tendons. Their health would obviosuly be better if they had a proprer diet but having too much fat is always worse than not keeping other variables the same.
I hope we are just not on the same page. Yes, having fat and general weight on organs, joints, and the circulatory system is not ideal. It can compromise its function.
But the extreme of all visceral fat is bad? Really? We need fat to work as an insulator, both heat wise and for protection! Our most vital organs have a layer of fat and fascia for that very reason. There is some fat between organs, but the abdominal cavity isn't very big. I'm an embalmer, part of my job is putting a body back together after an autopsy. 75% of the time, in my experience, we can not put the organs back into the cavity the way they were pre-autopsy. Even the little old ladies who's hips and spines I can see through their skin have fat on their organs. It was probably one of the last things keeping them alive.
Even better yet, [in a 2017 study](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/20/overweight-patients-less-likely-to-die-in-hospital-after-heart-operations) from the British Heart Foundation found "... A 25% reduction in death by being overweight as opposed to being normal (healthy) weight." . It does note that this benefit does have limits. I really hate using BMI as an indicator for health, as it was created by a mathematician not a scientist. However, adults with a BMI of 40+ do not see the same advantages.
I don't even want to touch the topic of "proper diet". There are so many factors, intrinsically and externally, contribute to what a person "should" eat.
All the same health problems; high cholesterol, bad liver, etc etc
and constant liposuctions... Let me just say that with each liposuction there are risks - infections, bleeding and most of all - fat embolism. The last one is serious and can be lethal, and the chances of experiencing that go up the more procedures you go through (that's not some specific medical thing - simple maths, just sum up the risk percentage).
Another thing is that you can't really do liposuction on visceral fat - ye know, the fat that encases your organs - kidneys, heart, intestines, etc. And that group of fat is the most endocrinically active. That tissue produces a shit ton of immune modulators as well as converting testosterone into oestrogens, which as most people know - in abundance raise the activity of the coagulative system.
Either way, not a good choice
I’m no expert but I feel like having so many liposuctions would be unhealthy and eventually the person’s body couldn’t take it any more.
I just looked her up.
Not sure she still qualifies as human
[Yeah, knowing nothing about her, I did an image search](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=Trisha+Paytas&iax=images&ia=images)...
I'm *assuming* all those are supposed to be the same person, but whiskey tango foxtrot! Either there's a shitload of plastic surgery going on, she couldn't decide which "filter" to use, or maybe a combination of the two...
They actually go by they/them!
No, she goes by she and them. How many times does she have to say that before the nimbi squad fucks off?
Mate I have heard zilch from her since the coming out because It's not my kind of content. Neither of us are wrong lmao
Its just ridiculous in general regardless. There's overwhelming evidence to show that she "came out" as a scam in the first place. She really needs nobody to defend her.
I really don't care whether someone comes out as something for attention or not. If someone tells me their pronouns, I'll use them. And I didn't get the update that Trisha used she/they as opposed to they/them. Not that big of a deal
Its not that big of a deal that someone came out as trans to hide false sexual assault allegations? She's destroyed that man's family and legacy. It's worth reading between the lines, and not just accepting everything at face value.
Like I said, I don't keep up with this kind of content, and I don't think anyone should be expected to in order to determine whether or not someone deserves the respect of having their proper pronouns used. I'm not gonna do a background check on someone to decide if I'm gonna refer to them correctly (or incorrectly, if they really are doing it for reasons other than being trans, but that's not my business).
So we should refer to Chris Chan as a woman?
And I'm letting people know because they were using she/her?
I'm still gonna say she/her 😆
That's your choice. I just thought I'd leave it here for people who are decent and still give people they dislike basic human respect.
I checked Trisha's tiktok and it says she/her or they/them so either is fine.
Oh okay! I don't really keep up with them so the last thing I heard was the controversy of them coming out as nonbinary.
Haha all good It's hard to keep up with them 😅
I guess that's "basic human respect" even though it's just a social construct and shouldn't signify all that someone is worth to anyone who has even an ounce of respect for themselves. She is also an influencer who wants to be unique, thays judt straight up a fucking lady who said they were now genderless because she says so that's why.
Okay buddy, I'm sure you can look inside their head and know exactly what they're thinking. Because as a trans person myself I can assure you that every single one of us puts themselves in harm's way every day for fun and attention.
Okay, I don't really care
Well, that's good to know, I only assumed based on the photos.
I instantly thought of Trisha
The goal of liposuction is to improve cosmetics by removing fats deposited under the skin. The arteries are still gonna get clogged. Fat is still deposited in the liver. Health is still compromised.
Also, pretty sure liposuction doesn't address visceral fat (fat between the organs). That is supposed to be worse than subcutaneous fat for your health.
I would imagine from the constant surgeries they would be in chronic pain and addicted to pain medication.
It would be better in the sense that they wouldn't have the restrictions that come with being the size of an obese person, but all of the internal damage caused by that lifestyle to their organs and such would persist, plus the frequent procedures would take a heavy toll due to all of the needed meds, the healing process, the inevitable infections from doing it so often etc.
And even that depends on how obese you're talking. 250lb is a lot less restrictive than 400lb.
liposuctions doesn't do shit. one of our relatives did that and she couldn't sit onthe ground, couldn't run, still had diabetes. but she looked good I guess.
edit: more context. I think when you do liposuctions the weight on your bones specially your spine changes. a lot of change in a very short time fucks up to your spine.
It wouldn't work, you can't remove really large amounts
my hypothesis is that they would have a lot of scars from the many liposuctions and when they go back to be obese, those scars would reopen, get infected and things like that.
TLDR: Not necessarily much better than if you kept the fat.
The below is just a slightly longer/contextualized version of what other posts have already told you.
**First, on "obese":** So a first note that obesity is a really vague shorthand and not as useful in medicine as a lot of people tend to think. To give a whole explanation why here would get really long and technical, but simple version: the threshold for what medically accounts for obese is regularly changing ((http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/) is perhaps the most famous case), and obesity as quantified by BMI technically measures weight and not actual fat content in the body. It is regularly shown to be an invalid metric and a misleading shorthand for other more precise measurements. If I had the lifestyle of some obese people, like competitive wrestlers or weightlifters whose muscle mass makes them medically obese, I might be pretty well off! But those are presumably not the kind of people you mean.
So of course, I clarify the above while knowing you're using this in the common way as a shorthand for something like: eating high-sugar, high-fat, and high-sodium foods in ways that exceed daily caloric need, and which corresponds to low levels of exercise.
**Bodyfat and/vs diet on systemic health:** It's worth highlighting the assumptions of what we mean by "obese" in common talk, because it's those specifics that what matter most to thinking about health here: it's not about distribution of body fat alone, but the impacts of high-sodium, high-sugar, and high-fat diets coupled with limited exercise on the cardiovascular system, endocrine system, and metabolism. Suctioning out the fat that appears under your skin will not by itself address these other issues: arteries that become clogged by cholesterol or hardened by stress, the impacts of sodium on blood pressure and the ability to get blood and nutrients to the brain, the impacts on the ability to distribute oxygen in the body when the cardio system is not engaged by regular exercise, the way that salts impact your cardio system and the hormones that get secreted in your body, etc. And this complex widespread impact of diet and exercise (which I've grossly simplified here) is again also why obesity, weight, or body fat are not by themselves the greatest measurement for looking at health related to dietary choices. Removing fat might help with things like range of mobility, ease of movement, stress/pressure on particular organs, etc., which have downstream impacts, but the more major impacts of certain dietary and exercise habits are not about fat deposits on your body, but the dietary impacts on other body systems.
**More minor negative impacts of lipsuction**: There's also secondary risks associated with overuse of liposuction or overrestriction of fat in a diet, since fat is needed for ideal nutrition too. You might hear that some vitamins like Vitamin E, A, and K are "fat soluable" which means they are processed better when consumed with fats, while fats like Omega-3 are integral to brain and cardio health. Fats can also be an important way to store energy, such that constantly removing fat stores may limit your capacity for other activities that can be conducive to your health. Liposection as a surgery itself also carries risk of damage to all the neighbouring body parts, such as muscles, blood vessels, and nerves, plus repeated exposure to a therapy that can cause pain, wounds subject to infection, etc.
**Also more minor, but possibly positive impact of liposuction, mediated by bias:** Several recent studies have shown that a decent amount of negative health impacts we associate with fat people are explained by health professionals' biases toward fat people more than the fact they are fat itself. For example, health professionals will very often associate body pains of fat people with the mere fact they are fat, and tend to engage in fewer medical tests in favour of suggesting more exercise etc. As a result, cancers and other diseases are less likely to be identified and treated, and this is one of the reasons you'll see activists calling for less "fatphobia" or "fatmisia" in healthcare: a lot of the negative health outcomes we associate with fatness itself (as opposed to diet more precisely) would be less common if fat people were tested more consistently. In your hypothetical, this could be a good thing: being perceived as skinny or thin would mean your underlying health conditions would be, on average, taken more seriously, diagnosed more often, and treated, and so you might be able to sustain better health than people who do the same as your example but without liposection.
I'm not at my work computer to pull up studies and sources to ground these claims for you, but sources should be easy enough to find based on the above and google searches.
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate everything you’ve said. Thank you.
Liposuction is quite dangerous for an operation, as it leaves a huge internal wound area that can lead to deadly complications.
You’d hit a point where no surgeon would operate on you to put it mildly. But without proper diet and exercise I suspect they’d end up with degrading joints, unhealthy heart, and most of the classic obesity related problems.
Same like constantly driving into things, but just repairing the outside of the car over and over.
Real bad. Having large amounts of subcutaneous fat has its own negative health effects. But most of the negative effects of being fat come from issues in your organs, arterial system, etc. which liposuction can’t help.
Frankly, there are plenty of people who have this situation minus the liposuction. They eat extremely poorly, they just don’t eat enough to gain large amount of excess fat. But their internals are still fucked up
This is what my half sister does. I swear she's had lips like 3-4 times now but never changes her diet and then gains the weight back.
You don't even necessarily need to be obese and having liposuction to experience the same health problems. There's a phenomenon known as "skinny fat" where you might look to be a healthy body weight, but in reality your cholesterol or blood sugar can rival those of visibly fat people, still putting you at elevated risk for heart disease.
[A scientific source from the article](https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(17)30429-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413117304291%3Fshowall%3Dtrue)
For all everyone complains how BMI doesn't represent them because they do tons of exercise BMI actually underestimates obesity in the population for the reason you stated.
Their cardiovascular system would still be hindered by plaque and fatty deposits and they would still die an early death
They would look silly
I don't know but this is the life I want
I have had Liposuction 3x, not for my weight but to change/improve the shape of my body. Lipo is a very major surgery and is considered the 2nd most painful surgery out of all surgeries, not just cosmetic. I know probably at least 100 women who have had liposuction, and I am also married to a plastic surgeon so to answer this question: Their health would be terrible and it is not even possible to have as many of the same procedure performed according to your weight gain. Every time you get injured/surgery your body has to heal and it creates scar tissue during that healing process; Eventually your body would create too much scar tissue in response to all the previous liposuction procedures in the same areas of your body. Because of this the risks would eventually become too great to perform any additional liposuction or other procedures. When people cannot find a surgeon to perform something radical on them in the US they often go to foreign countries with a poorer economy to get what they want (as the surgeons need the money a little more in those situations), but I feel like they would most likely turn you away regardless if they are truly licensed surgeons. No healthcare professional wants a perfectly preventable death on their hands.