Wheetsin

You know, I don't even notice the naming. If ppl like it, they like it. What does bug me just a bit is that people have to put huge ginormous sparkly things, pictures, text, etc. advertising their month's name in their signatures. It's just as bad as when people used to put 30 limes of text, so literally a whole page OR MORE is just their signature, and none of it matters. Is anyone's signature so important that it needs to be that prominent? Why does this bother me? Because I run at 1680 resolution, meaning an awful lot of stuff should fit on my screen, but I STILL have to scroll down to see more than part of one reply because of all the clutter in the signature. I mean - really - as if we can't see things unless they're like 20 inches high. (It's not just the month names, it's the people names, avatars, etc. that people do in these obnoxious ways. Come on. The glitter stuff isn't even pretty, it's the online equivalent of blue eyeshadow with pink pearl lipstick.) It's the same thing when you're on a board that doesn't limit avatar size, and someone wants to use a 500x500 avatar picture, so you're scrolling along just fine and all of a sudden you have to go way to the right just to see the person's message ( = you're not getting a reply from a lot of ppl). From a usability perspective, this is like nails on a chalkboard.

I think the OJ & skin thing was a coincidence. Your skin is eastic, or it isn't. You can't really just make it stretchy. But you can have good genes, good health, and just happen to drink OJ too. :cool: Jachut is right on. If you see someone who has lost their excess fat, there's a huge difference in the skin there, and the skin you see in a lot of pics here. I wish I had thought to bookmark it, but I was once directed to a website with pics from a lady trying to get insurance approval for PS. She had RnY and had lost all of her excess weight plus some. She was *thin*. One of the pics was her laying flat on the ground, and her skin spread out around her like a puddle of Water. No thickness to it, it just literally hung. Most of the time you see the skin hanging but still looking full. This wasn't the case, it really was empty.

Hahaha. And if you "sorry, didnt check my email after 6" and she fails, it's your fault. She wouldn't have failed if you were a good teacher (I heard that one back when I taught ENG090)

Oops that first link should be this one instead.

There's a lot of debate around that, it's a hot topic in the last few years. Studies are showing that antidepressants (period, let alone long-term) can actually be risky for bipolar depression. This will explain it much more succinctly than I can: (from Bipolar II, Mood Swings without Mania; Brain Tours; Stress and Depression; Hormones and Mood; and more...) Kindling refers to the theory of neurobiological evolution - every time the mania/depression hits (or other episodic classification), it becomes subsequently harder to treat.

There is a common happening known as addiction hopping. (That's an unclinical term :cool: ). I can't relate to the alcohol, but I can relate to hopped addictions. 98% of the people here can. There's another current thread on the same topic here. Past thread here. Here. Here. Etc. You're definitely not the only one.

I don't care who's bipolar or who isn't, bipolarish is not a diagnosis. Pretty sure it'll never make it into the DSM. Maybe that means "bipolar tendencies" (aka undiagnosed, and often misdiagnosed as with unipolar depression), or maybe it means "bipolar, but I'm not going to tell you that." Maybe not quite meeting enough of the diagnosis criteria. Maybe meeting the criteria for bipolar II but not bipolar I. Who knows. Not I. :cool: I'm not a Jew, I'm Jewish.

Guys, even in RnR, please try to keep it to the idea, not the person. :cry

Yes - as Jack said. OoP expenses beyond 7.5% of your AGI can be deducted. Since that's Greek to most people, read on if you need more info. AGI - Adjusted Gross Income. AGI is your gross income from all sources, minus valid deductions such as alimony, moving expenses, IRA contributions, etc. Let's say your AGI is $100,000. Let's also say your valid band-related costs are $15,000. 7.5% of your AGI is $7,500. So: $15,000 - $7,500 = $7,500 (the maximum of your itemized deduction). In other words... Medical costs - 7.5% of AGI = maximum deduction As for medical loans, I'm not entirely sure but I would think that only the expenses you actually paid in any given tax year are eligible for deduction. Again - just a guess. In other words, if you took out a loan but are only paying $1000/yr in payments, then I would think at best that's $1000/yr you can deduct. I know that when considering medical expenses, it's the year in which the expenses are paid, regardless of the year in which services are rendered.

I really hate the word "cock." I don't really know why. It's just uncomfortable to me. So is "tit" or "tits." I don't pay much attention to any other euphamism, I just cannot stand those two in particular. I just loathe those words.

This is really testing the limits of my memory. Growing up I think it was: Urine = pee or tinkle Poop = poo Vagina/whole area = peepee Penis = penis There are two things related to this that I remember clearly. One was that my parents always fought to get me to call things by their proper names (their philosophy and mine - just call it the right thing from the beginning and you're one step ahead), but I wouldn't do it because I wanted to call them the same things that all the other kids called them. Two was that although I called a fart a fart, my grandmother considered that a bad word. When we visited, which was only every few years, she would snap at me if I called it a fart. Around her, I could only call them "putt-putts."

I LOVE the results from threading, but can't find an area around here that does it. Laurend, what does the $750 cover? Is an area "eyebrows" or "eyebrow"? Do make sure to post about how it feels. I already told hubby he's probably buying me this.

I'm sorry but "happy" is offensive to those who are suffering clinical depression, and "holiday" is offensive to the people who have to work. I think "day and night of undiscolsed placation" will work!

Then I'm not sure what type of advice you're looking for, if you already know all this. What type of info would help you? I'm not sure about checke dluggage, I never check luggage. I think the carry-on limit is plastic w/ round blade. Maybe someone else or your local airport could help make sure.

Maybe santa should say, "Gender-neutral non-denominational saying with no ethnic or cultural implications! Gender-neutral non-denominational saying with no ethnic or cultural implications! Gender-neutral non-denominational saying with no ethnic or cultural implications!"

That's pretty soon. Watch your incisions and make sure they look good before you leave. Also make sure your surgeon knows your plans, and ensure that you have your facility's contact info. Cruise ships have onboard medical staff, but you can't trust or assume that they know the first thing about the band. As for food... How long is your cruise? It might be easier to just pack pre-made drinks than to bring the bullet, cups/bases, etc. I'm not entirely sure you'd be able to bring the bullet (especially if you have to take a plane to the departure port) per the blades on the base. IIRC, the formal restaurants have set menus. You can't just go in and order whatever, like a regular restaurant. The non-formal restaurant is buffet-style. You may have better luck there. However, there are usually dedicated mini-restaurants (e.g. pizza stands, sushi bars, etc.) Yuo mau have some luck finding something at one of these, too.

So let's see... Santa can't say "ho" because it might scare children... ...but a strange old man in a pointy hat and a burly beard asking children to sit on his lap and tell him their deepest wishes is ok... ...some things will never make sense to me.

I opt to NOT get lidocaine, and whem my surgeon does the fills it has never taken more than one try. Once I needed an emergency unfill and a surgeon who had never done a fill had to do my unfill. That hurt a bit, and left me sore - like I had been kicked. My place has started having a PA do fills and it took him a few tries. But with my experienced surgeon, he has always gotten it on the first try. If he has problems finding the port, he resolved them before the needle goes in. Never had a fill under fluoro.

Up until a few weeks ago I never so much as looked twice at a Starbucks. For one, even though I think it smells divine, I am not fond of coffee. I like the flavor in some things, like ice cream, but I don't like the drink. For two, it intimidates me to go into places and not know the "lingo" (I think it comes from being assaulted by the Gates' cashier - anyone who has been there knows what I mean) -- and I certainly never studied Starbuck-ese. Then a few weeks ago I was shopping with a friend and he wanted his doublehalffatcaramelmochiattaspressochipberry surprise. And they had these litte samples on the counter. Something green. So I tasted it, and was introduced to the Green Tea Frappucino Light. And we've been dear friends ever since.

We have always been a very amorous couple - the biggest improvement I can think of is that we can now do positions that we couldn't do when I had as much excess weight. Positions my husband really enjoys, so I always felt bad that I could no longer do them, physically. There are some positions that just aren't doable/realistic when you're very large. What's worse - the only con I can think of is that some positions cause me pain in my port area. Positions *I* enjoyed, and now usually don't do because of the discomfort. But I will take that ANY day, over the alternative.

Oh come on. Losing weight cannot make a penis grow larger. It can make the penis APPEAR larger. If the above quote were accurate, my clitoris would be about 5.5" longer than it was before I had my band surgery. You'll just have to take my word for it when I say that's definitely not the case. Look at Patrick Deuel. He lost almost 750 lbs. Let's say his pre-op penis size was your run-of-the-mill 6 inches. He would now have a 31" penis. That's like my leg.

It's interesting to look at the fine line between humor and poor taste. I think we often admire humor for the truth and wit, unexpectedness, etc. in it. After all, a good sense of humor is one of the best indicators of intelligence. And while "good" sense of humor is extraordinarly arbitrary, there are some things that we can find almost universally funny. The psychology of humor is an amazing study. Here's a joke I was once told: Did you hear they're building a new skyscraper hospital in Dallas for AIDS patients? They're calling it "Sick Fags over Texas." I'm not sick (well, not physically anyway) and I'm not homosexual, but that's just not funny to me. It's miserable. I don't know a single homosexual it was funny to, or many straights. Here's another joke I was once told: Do you know how copper wire was invented? Two jews were fighting over a penny. I'm not jewish, but I thought it was a cute joke. I also know people who are jewish, and do think it's funny. So what makes one joke funny, but not the other? What factors drive humor and acceptance? I think South Park is one of the most brilliant shows around. It has some of the smartest writing I've ever seen. My parents, too, find it funny - so it isn't just an age thing. But I know people who think it's a disgusting show - they won't even watch it. But if they did watch it, do you think they'd laugh at anything? (honest question). Humor in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy The role and nature of humor

Every surgeon I've come across has slightly different requirements, but they're all defined by what he or she feels will yeild the best results. Surgeons (goos ones anyway) aren't looking for loss in the first few weeks, they're looking for healing. Eating foods too soon can cause damage. Just because you don't understand how they can damage you doesn't mean it can't happen. It is VERY important to follow a prescribed post-op diet. Your body does not go into starvation mode after a few weeks of reduced intake, and cessation of loss after the first handful of weeks does not mean you're starving or that your body is hoarding calories. Vortually every diet "kicks off" with a drop in our body's Water volume. "Starvation mode" for anyone here is synonymous with "I don't understand how metabolism works." Sorry - normally I just walk on by that phrase and let it be used however it's being used, even use it myself to refer to the process that the poster is talking about (albeit a different process than they think) but it's causing so much confusion and misunderstanding among people trying to lose weight that I just can't. Try rethinking "starvation mode" as "not actively losing body fat" or "not losing weight because my metabolism has slowed down and I'm not compensating for it" or even "I don't understand the metabolic process." Don't think of it as STARVATION, or some mode that the body just suddenly switches in to because you lose a few lbs. No one here is at any risk of starving. Even IF there was a "starvation mode" it would require a process to get into, and only because that's true for most significant shifts in body function (even acute situations require time for the body function shifts). It wouldn't be a sudden event, where one day you're fine and the next day you've hit this mysterious weightloss resistance because your body thinks it's starving. A process like that would require a LOT of time to adjust to. Few people here have been banded long enough to even remotely experience anything like it, and few bandsters truly eat so little that they're anywhere near starving. And it really isn't a matter of the body hoarding everything it gets, it's more a matter of your body using its calories more effeciently. Effecient energy means that your body can acquire the energy for less evergy than it takes to get it. Unfortunately our most efficient sources are our lean body mass long term, and glycogen short term, which causes a water release & is why there's an inital fast weight drop (you aren't losing fat, you're losing water). You'll hear people say, "You can lose a lot of weight by fasting." They're so totally wrong in saying that. That's also why it's more dangerous for lower BMI patients to lose weight through a starvation-type diet... they have even less fat than MO so their lean body mass is gobbled up that much quicker. When you decrease your caloric intake, your metabolism also decreases. However, your metablosim doesn't decrease because your calories decreased. It decreases because your body begins to break down the lean mass (remember -- muscle tissues are easier to break down than fat)... in essence it starts to eat itself. At the same time your body also has the programming to know this shouldn't be happening, so it slows down your metabolic (and other) processes so that its lean masses are broken down slower... kind of a vicious cycle. Anyway, the body's goal in decreasing the metabolism is not to keep up with however many calories you're eating, the goal is to have to feed off itself as little as possible. Then you get into the irony of that fuel that was created by metabolizing your lean mass being converted to sugars by your liver, with the goal of keeping your fat stores in place. Losing weight by metabolizing lean mass is going to produce a really weak, flabby, unhealthy end product. They key is to avoid burning muscle and get the body to burn fat, so ideally you'd target between your BMR and AMR, and not a fixed number like "1,000". That's another misconception. Also when you hear a number like, "1,000" it should raise some alarms because everyone here is different and we're all going to need different numbers of calories. Someone who is starting off at 450 lbs might have a BMR over 3500. Someone at the same height starting off around 230 lbs might be closer to 2150. There's NO WAY both people are going to have the same goals for how many calories they eat per day... absolutely no way. (Which is also a reminder to adjust your goal intake regularly, depending on your current weight, and not think that what you ate 50 lbs ago is what you should still be eating today). "Starvation mode" -- remember - we will never experience this - in the most dire, extreme cases there may be added resistance, say in someone who had only 2% body fat and had not consumed adequate fuel in a LONG time... and even then you may see a metabolic drop of... 20% BMR. Think about it. The average person could go 5, 6, maybe even 8 weeks with NO food. Zero calories. Fatties can go longer. It doesn't even make sense for people with plenty of body fat to hit some kind of crazy survival/starvation mode in 1 or 2 weeks. MAYBE once you got to an extreme, dire life/death situation, and your body fat had dropped to... below 5%, MAYBE you might see your BMR decrease... oh... 20%. A reduction like that WILL NOT stop weightloss. If it did, no one would ever die of starvation. (As a side note, I've also seen the claim made that starvation mode will "stop metabolism". If your metabloism is stopped, you're dead... no ifs ands or buts. If you're alive, you are metabolizing.) A good general target for healthy, maintainable weightloss is somewhere between your BMR and AMR (IMO - but also more than just O). I know -- if it's that easy, why are we all fat? It's not that easy, but if we make good food choices, it's EXACTLY what our bands are going to help us do. Good guidelines for doing this without all the number-crunching is to eat only enough to where you're no longer hungry (focus on "Am I hungry?" DO NOT focus on, "Am I full?" They're NOT the same thing), eat very small servings - understanding it's easier to come back for more than to deal with the consequences of eating too much, and up your intake if you notice that you're getting tired, having a hard time focusing, etc. Generally speaking, if you follow these guidelines AND make good food choices, you will hit a number between the two rates. And you'll need to keep in mind to adjust as your weight decreases. For me, it works well to decrease the number of calories I eat by about 10 for every pound I lose. Sorry for the novel.

Jodie_Warner06, let me ask - who exactly is "you guys"? I mean, you quote me, but then when I include myself in "you guys" you say that it doesn't necessarily refer to the person you quote. So please define for me (and perhaps us all, if anyone else is interested) who "you guys" is...

What did you expect or assume you would see with the band, that actually isn't the case? This will be an interesting way to see how different our indiviudal "band realities" are. I expected that my restriction would be random in terms of the food it would pass at any point in time, but continuous throughout the day. In other words, I assumed I would be as restricted in the evening as I would be in the morning, but that sometimes I could eat chicken Mon but not Tue. That's soo not the case for me. My "sweet spot" seems to include extreme restriction in the morning & afternoon, and almost none in the evening. I used to try and combat this with fills - I need more because I'm too open at night, I need less because I'm too tight in the morning. Now I accept that my restriction has its own patters, and that by being careful in the early part of the day, and careful (in a different way) in the evening, I can accept some version of a sweet spot being different than what I had expected. I assumed I would have a soft stop. All the other stories I read about had them, so why wouldn't I? I don't have a soft stop. The closest I have is pressure in my chest. Food eotiehr goes right down, or I get pressure. If I stop at the first sign of pressure and wait for it to clear before taking another bite, I'm fine. If I keep eating after the first sign of pressure, I'm probably going to have a problem. The pressure feeling took me a while to notice - it's not very prominent. About 10 months in the concept of really listening to my body struck home, and I picked up on this tiny whisper. Life has gotten a lot easier since. I actually expected having something stuck to feel like a "golf ball," and that when the food needed to come up it would just come up, unexpectedly. I don't know what "golf ball" all you guys out there are referring to, because when something is stuck with me, it feels a lot closer to needing to burp but not being able to (in fact, that's exactly it - a burp tries to move but can't, tho occasionally a tiny one can squeeze through), coupled with a hand squeezing my esophagus. And that's before the straight-up pain kicks in. In my world there is no such thing as, "Oopsie, look, a PB!" My PBs HURT. From the time that I know I have to PB, until I'm done, we're looking at 20 - 45 mins (that's if I can clear the stoma on the first 1 - 2 tries... the last time I was stuck it was 8+ tries). I have a high pain tolerance, but in the last few minutes before I can actually get anything up, I'm nearly doubled over. I attribute it to esophageal spasms, which would make sense since I can have the same pain if I wretch but cannot produce. So what sort of incorrect assumptions did you have? What's different for you than the 98% of people you read about?