Posted: 28/12/2015 at 15:35
I'm not expecting diet to be the fix. I'm hoping that exercise will, (even if only partly).
I'd expect that cutting a vital artery would be news and that it is fairly rare but it was mentioned as a risk. I also don't want to be left with nerve damage. The specialist said nerve damage in this area could result in loss of jaw control (so eating, drinking, speaking, dribble control etc. all affected) or loss of use of all or part of an arm. The risk of a problem was put at 30% which seems extremely high to me.
Even if I only delay getting to the point where surgery is required it guarantees more years without those problems. Doing nothing won't delay things.
Sure, there's a 70% chance that things will be fine. But that's not good enough to make me happy with the risk. If I can put the risk off without causing further risk then it seems like a good move.
Whilst I don't know how the biology of this works, i.e. how exercise will affect removal of fat from an unusual place, I don't know if this will do anything useful but my understanding is that fat is normally removed roughly in proportion to how much of it there is. So, something vaguely like, if 10g of fat is going and 50% of fat is on your belly then around 5g will go from there. Or perhaps it's down to how many "depositors" of fat there are at a site which presumably are also able to carry the fat away when the process is reversed. If the later is the case then I'm in luck because for the lump to be noticeable implies more depositors. It could also mean more depositors and that the removal mechanism is something else of which there are fewer.
Seems like the feeling from posters so far is that although running may do no harm, it's a dead cert that it won't help in the way that I imagine it will. Perhaps someone who knows about how fat deposits (in these "lump" cases) and how fat absorbs during exercise can offer their view.