kagoscuba

make33 - I'd agree on bench-press. I've lost 50 pounds and I haven't lost a pound of strength on any of my exercises. In fact, some exercises I'd been avoiding for years I can now do, due to the lower amount of weight I'm carrying around. Exercises like dips, pullups, and core building exercises are a lot easier, when I'm not carrying a "6 year old" around anymore.

How soon did you start exercising after surgery? 4 days after surgery I was doing the elliptical for 20 minutes. A week later I was up to 1/2 hour. 2 weeks after surgery I was doing abdominal exercises. 4 weeks post-op I was cleared for lifting weights and unlimited exercise. What kinds of activities? Right now I do 6 days a week of cardio on either a treadmill or elliptical for 1/2 hour at lunchtime. On Wednesday I double cardio and do 45 minutes on the elliptical at night. On Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday I do weight training for 45 minutes to 90 minutes, dependent on the workout for the day. In addition, I do abdominal exercises daily. Were you active prior to surgery? Not very in the year preceeding surgery.

True, I am pro-choice, and also I was trying to be the "devil's advocate" on the whole banning of obese people suggestion. I did call it facist and I did not condone the suggestion; however, I do understand it. On a weird level it does make sense, but implementation of it would have to be balanced with civil liberties, which would mean it would and SHOULD fail. People who have never been fat probably don't see the harm in such legislation. A lot of them just think, "eat less, you lazy ba$tards, and we'll welcome you in no problem." Of course we all know it is not that easy.

My point was, if a bar can refuse to serve drinks to someone who is obviously impaired (they didn't have to drink there; they could have come to the bar drunk already...happens all the time), then why is it such a stretch of the imagination for a restaurant to refuse to serve food to someone who is obviously well fed already? I understand the logic, even though I don't condone it. Even another example is the fact casinos can and do refuse to allow addicted gamblers into their casinos, once they are put on the "do not allow" list.

"if this was to pass, then i would recommend legilation to prevent alcoholics from being served drinks in a bar or restaurant...same difference, different addiction" Um, this already exists. Not for alcoholics, but it is illegal in many states for a bar to serve drinks to someone who is obviously impaired. I'm actually not that upset by the "turning away the obese" legislation. From a personal freedom standpoint, yeah, it is facist. However, of all people, we should know the benefit of having a temptation removed. the band doesn't work for me because of some magic. It works for me because the food that caused me problems in the past - Pasta and bread - I am physically incapable of eatnig now. There is no temptation and I don't feel deprived, because I know it is impossible for me to eat those things. If I knew it was impossible for me to go into a Mickey D's, then I wouldn't miss that either. That's the difference between dieting and the band. You can always slide on a diet. You really can't on the band, unless you gorge on ice cream or high-calorie drinks. I didn't have an issue with those before the band, so maybe that part is naturally easy for me.

I am SO STOKED. I got on the scale this morning for by bi-monthly weigh-in (personal not medically directed) and I had the proof...down 50 pounds!!! I can't believe how I feel. Losing the weight has liberated me. :regular_smile:

Every time I read one of these stories (about 1-2 a year here in NJ) it pisses me off to no end. How can this happen? It seems absolutely unfair. Your thoughts? Hunterdon man loses appeal to cut child support by Ralph Ortega/The Star-Ledger Thursday January 24, 2008, 4:14 PM A Hunterdon County man who discovered he was not the father of a 10-year-old girl, was denied his appeal to lower his child support payments, according to an opinion handed down this week by the state Appellate Division. An appeals court on Wednesday affirmed an October 2006 decision made by state Superior Court Judge Stephen Rubin in Flemington against the request made by the man, identified in court papers only as W.S.Y. Jr. to protect the child's identity. W.S.Y. claimed that a paternity test proved he was not the biological father of the child, whom he thought he had conceived with his then wife. He went before Rubin seeking disclosure of the identity of the child's real father, appointment of a mental health counselor to address paternity issues, and reduced child support, including reimbursement for support previously paid retroactive to the child's birth. The opinion, referring to the child by her initials, F.Y., states that the appeals panel was satisfied with the way Rubin made his decision against the requests. The judge "conducted a thorough analysis of the appropriate best interest factors and concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that the issue of paternity at this point in F.Y.'s life is not in her best interests." W.S.Y's attorney was not immediately available for comment.

My favorite moderately priced Australian wine is Penfold's Koonuga Hill Shiraz-Cabernet vintage 2004. Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet : Koonunga Hill Range : Penfolds Wine Collection I bought a case for my wife, as a holiday present, and it is already gone. :rolleyes2: In NJ, it is about $12 a bottle.

"I do have an issue if the fetus has any chance of life outside the womb to be disposed of. Who are we to play God and say a baby only has a 1 in 4 chance to survive, so they don't get the chance." I agree. However, the difference between us, is I am pro-choice. I have stated in another thread, though, that once the fetus is biologically capable of living outside the womb, the choice is now taken from the mother, except in cases of danger to the mother. I consider conception as the "potential for life" not as life itself. If not, then I am a murderer, as my wife and I had multiple embryos created for IVF, and not all of those were allowed to grow. Of course, not all of the embryos that were implanted grew either, so I guess they weren't part of the "plan" either...oops gone into TMI land again. :frown: Met another mother who had two embryos implanted, and both split, and she had two sets of identical twins...talk about getting your money's worth!!

different stories for different people. I was on the elliptical 4 days post-op, lifting limited to 20 pounds or less, and was cleared for "unlimited" (heavy lifting) exercise at 4 weeks. My doc doesn't believe the body should be pampered after this surgery, but he does say "follow your body; if it hurts adjust your routine."

"What a fantastic ethos! I may have found a branch of Christianity that I agree with! Thanks Kago :)" You are most welcome, Nina! :tongue:

"However I am not going to push my beliefs on you or "make" you believe what I do. What I am going to do is thank God whenever and however I feel to. Thank God it is still a free country!" Jaymie, you'd make a quality Unitarian. I usually am succinct on this whole subject, so I'll try to be again: Religion is not the truth, God is. Live well, respect well, and leave this earth at least as good of a place as you entered it. Do these things and any God I'd be proud to be a part of will accept you into his good graces. If believing in one particular doctrine is the only way to enter Heaven, then I eagerly await Hell.

"And pregnancy is a gift!" Pregnancy is objectively biological, not a gift. Subjectively, however, it may be a gift or a treasure, based on personal beliefs. I know plenty of women who abhor the idea of ever having a baby. I also know plenty of others who had babies because it was the "family thing to do," (nothing to do with the abortion argument) and they are miserable mothers because they truly never wanted kids in the first place.

My doc had me doing exercise, including light weight lifting and ab work at two weeks, and he had me on the elliptical four days post-op. As he stated, "I do this procedure for police who come in for surgery on Thursday and are back to full active-duty the next Monday; the elliptical isn't going to hurt you. Don't lift anything over 20 pounds for a month, but everything else is open."

I'm actually a little shocked by the shallowness of my answer: If the procedure was fully insured, I'd probably take the chance, as everyone started out somewhere. However, since I am a self-pay, I would not have the surgery done by this doctor, as I'd need a longer track-record before putting down my money. Sad, but true that money would be the highest priority, every thing else being equal. Oc course, a doctor with one procedure under his belt could be better than one with 2000 too.

"Mayans did seem to have some fairly distressing practices but these slaughters involved adult men who failed at the local sport." Perhaps Columbians have some Mayan roots then...they killed a player for making an "own goal" in soccer against the USA.

"Why would people think $16,000 was a lot? " I would have to agree with the question. My costs: Doctor's Fee: $6000 Anesthesiolgist's Fee: $2400 Hospital's Fee: $13000 First two fills free - rest are $200 each All pre-surgery work was covered by insurance, as well as meds.

It sounds like a crock to me, but they have lots of "evidence" that says otherwise. Here is the website: Full Body Fitness | Health and Wellness | Vibration Technology & Acceleration Training | Low-Stress Exercise Equipment | Power Plate

"When did this guy get castrated?" He was castrated in the 90's. It is still unclear whether it was self-inflicted or if vigilantes did it to him.

I have lost 47 pounds in a little over 3 months. However, whether it is purely coincidence or not, males seem to lose faster than females. The lab-band has been a godsend for me.

The main reason I hate the BMI chart is it makes no distinction for sex. At 5'9" and 164, I'd be considered one pound short of overweight, but in reality I'd be pretty scrawny. I know, I've been that height and weight before. A woman at that height and weight would most likely be very healthy looking and could possibly be carrying a small amount of excess weight (most likely not). I use athletes for reference for what I should weigh. If Ray Rice (running back for Rutgers) is 5'9" and weighs 200 pounds (he is and does), then I'd better weigh less than him, at my ideal weight, because he is a freak of muscular nature, and I am not. I work out a decent bit, so I know 165 is not going to happen, which is how I go to my stretch goal of 180.

I'm 5'9", and my BMI says I need to weigh a max of 164lbs. When I was in high school, playing football every day, I weighed 165 lbs with a 28 inch waist, so I was already overweight. For my lapband journey I have three goal weights, from my top weight of 265. The first goal I have met, which was to be below 225 (my lowest weight in the last 5 years). My second goal is 199, and my stretch goal is 180 and a 32 inch waist. At 180 and 32 inch waist, I'll look pretty darn good, and I won't care what the BMI charts say.

"Starvation Mode" is a nice concept to delude us into thinking that's why we are not losing weight, much like thinking the uptick in weight must be associated with lean muscle gain. In the very short-term (two weeks or less) these two factors might come into play, but scientific evidence proves that lower metabolic rates and balances of fat to lean muscle gains balance out fairly quickly. Consider the following: Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss. For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes. It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged. While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Center article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint). Metabolism after Weight Loss The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilized, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.

"Permanent removal of the testes would solve the repeat offender problem too! No testes, no drive right?" Not always the case. The rapist that Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee pardoned, on the basis of repeated calls for leniancy from the religious right, raped a woman and killed her, after he was physically castrated.

Just would like to see what other peole think about this administration's sudden adoration of torture, and I want to see if I am left-wing, right-wing, or just plain nuts (most likely). The torture de jour is waterboarding. 1. Is it torture? 2. Should people in the US caught doing it be prosecuted as war criminals? 3. Would you support state-sanctioned torture of someone to save 1 person, 10 people, a thousand, a million people? My Answers: 1. Yes 2. Yes - because the US has prosecuted Japanese commanders for waterboarding US troops during WWII, and they were sentenced to life in prison. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Not to mention waterboarding is against the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ. 3. No to all. Total left-wing loon, right? Wait...there's more. I don't support government sanctioned torture. In other words, it is bad policy. It makes the US a lesser place to have this policy part of the official record. We lose the appearance of having a moral high ground, as a nation. Nothing is rarely as it appears, however...what the CIA does in black-ops they do not need to report to the general public, and they should use any methods deemed needed. If they need to torture, maim, or kill to get the information they need, then so be it. However, tell them if they get caught, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That keeps them discrete (as they should be already). I call it the speeding car syndrome. We are all given cars that are made to exceed any speed limit here in the US. We are given the freedom to drive the car, within a set of laws. If we break the laws though, we get penalized. For better or worse agencies like the CIA perform duties most of are unable or unwilling to do, and those duties are needed to keep us free. While I am against wholesale torturing of prisoners; I also understand there are times when more extreme measures are needed. *donning flame suit* FLAME ON!! :eek: