marjon9

It's true that the state forces its views on others all the time. That is absolutely true. But when the state seeks to assert its police power to force me to do something, it has to say why. Citizens do not have to go around constantly proving why the state should leave them alone. A person who wants to walk down the street does not need to petition the state in advance to demonstrate why the state should not stop the person from walking down the street. In contrast, if the state wants to use its police power to stop me from walking down the street, it must show why it has the right to do so. As applied here, the only possible justification you could have for forcing other people to live as you want them to is if you are able to prove that a dividing fetus is "human life." The burden is on you to justify your use of police power. Not the other way around. You have not proved your case. And it is completely irrelevant for you to turn around and say to me, OK, prove a dividing embryo is not life. I don't have to do that, or claim to be able to do that. Your whole argument is based on the premise that a dividing embryo equals human life. My whole argument is based on the premise that NO ONE KNOWS if a dividing embryo is human life. I make no claim to know that it is or is not. You are the one making the claims here, not me. I have no idea whether a dividing embryo is life or not. My argument is, since no one knows, you have not proven your case. And therefore you have no right to invoke the police power of the state to force me to live life by your rules. You can make the argument, if you want to, that since no one knows, why not err on the side of life. What if it is life, and all that. That is an argument that makes sense to some people. Feel free to make that argument and try to convince as many people as you can to go your way on that. But just because, in your opinion, we should "err" on the side of life, that does not justify the use of police power to force other people to live by the moral code that makes sense to you. You have often repeated this story about how the state uses its power all the time to force people to do certain things. But that is a totally irrelevant argument in this context. No one is suggesting that the state lacks that power to do that. But the state can only do that once it has established that it has a right to do so. That has not happened here. Therefore, it is totally irrelevant that the state, in many other circumstances where it has justified its actions, has the right to use the police power.

OK, so you are not going to answer the questions and discuss the issues. I will just accept that. The one additional point I will make is that you are the one who wants to use the power of the state to force your views on others. In my opinion that puts the burden on you to prove that a dividing embryo in the first few weeks after conception is "human life." If you want to use the police power of the state to force me to live by your rules, prove your case. In contrast, I am not attempting to force you to do anything. In my world, you are free to do what makes sense to you. If you don't want to have an abortion, by all means, don't have one. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I don't need to prove anything.

Your arguments are more of the same, and they do not address the points I made at all. I'm wondering if you will ever actually address the points I make. It is simply not true that a dividing embryo that is months away from viability has all the human features you describe above (beating heart, brain, etc). As you know, pro-life people believe that life begins at the moment of conception, long before there is any heart or brain. So, your argument is completely irrelevant. We are not discussing late term abortion here. So, I ask again, what is it that makes a dividing embryo "human life"? The only answer is that it has the potential to become human life. But is it human life now? That's the whole question. Again, you cannot prove that it is human life by simply declaring that it is. And your argument about illegal aliens is ridiculous. Again, you are trying to win your argument by assuming the very point that is in dispute. Of course you can't kill illegal aliens or anyone else because you don't think that their form of "human life" is as valuable as another. But we are not talking here about "human life." We are talking about a dividing embryo. I know you think that a dividing embryo is human life, but other people disagree. That is the whole dispute. And your argument that the state has the right to get involved where "human life" is concerned, is another example of your refusal to actually discuss the issue. The issue here is, whether or not an embryo actually is "human life." I know you think it is, but others disagree. It is totally irrelevant to argue that the state has the right to intervene when "human life" is at stake. No one disagrees with that. But that proves nothing about whether or not an embyo actually is "human life." Gadget, you seem like a bright person. Do you really not understand the point here? Or are you just afraid to look at it. Are you going to actually discuss this issue? Or not. When an embryo is in its early stages, long before it has a heart or brain, is it "human life"? And if so, why? As you know, other people disagree that this is human life. Why do you get to decide? Are you going to tell me that you get to decide because, in the case of "human life," the state gets to intervene? Are you really going to do that again? Or are you going to actually discuss the issue. The issue is, when an embryo is in the early stages, is it human life? And if so, why? And since many people disagree, why do you get to decide?

The point where human life begins is the very question at issue here. I could just as well say to you "please show me how it is human life." And clearly it is not enough to say that it is "human" and it is "alive," so therefore it is "human life." A skin cell is "human" and "alive," that does not make it "human life." A dividing embryo that is months away from viability is "human life" to some people, and it is not "human life" to other people. It is not enough for you to simply say that it is human life because it is human life. That does not prove anything. How is an embryo different from a skin cell? Good question. After all, they are both "human," and they are both "alive." So, what is the difference? The difference is, the embryo has the potential to become a human baby. Now, in your mind, this potential to become a baby means that it already is a human baby. Other people disagree. So, who gets to decide? Why do you get to be the one to force other people to accept your view of this very difficult, complex, personal decision?

It's interesting to me that your style of argument mostly involves assuming that you are right about the very issue that is in contention. For example, your basic argument against abortion goes as follows: Abortion is taking a human life because abortion is taking a human life. But that "because" just doesn't work. The question whether a fetus is a human life is exactly the issue in contention. You can't win your argument simply by "assuming" that you are right and then putting that assumption forward as your "proof" that you are right. And you have done the same thing here. You argue that there is no such thing as a "potential human life, that there is either life or not." But, that is exactly the issue being debated. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is more than a potential human life. I think you need to do more than simply declare: "I'm right because . . . I'm right." And I would point out that even so called pro-life people disagree on whether an embryo that has not yet attached is a "life." So which is it? Is such an embryo a "life" or a "potential life." I assume you will agree, there is room for debate on that point. The so-called pro-choice people simply take the same discussion further. Many simply do not agree with you that a fetus at any stage is a "human life." Many believe it is not anything more than a "potential human life." So, are you going to debate this issue? Or, are you simply going to argue, like usual, that "a fetus is a human life because a fetus is a human life."

Remember, sexual orientation is a choice, it's not something you are born with. So compulsory gay marriage should not be a problem for anyone. People can simply "choose" to be attracted to the same sex. If people have any residual problems with this they can join programs where people hit pillows and things to deal with it. And if this one simple solution resolves so many social problems, there is no reason why it should not be made compulsory. After all, "Legislature Knows Best." Here, let me start. Hey, 396Power, you look kinda cute. Do you really have a beard? What's your sign?

I support compulsory gay marriage for everyone.

Thanks for the thoughts BJean!

Momma?!?!?

You make some good points. I grew up in Southern California also and worked with undocumented Mexican immigrants in the restaurant business for many years. Made some good friends in the process. I think there is no doubt that in the long run, the offspring of undocumented immigrants can make great contributions to the country. But I think the problem we are facing now is that many people feel there may be no time to wait for this anymore. Many people experience this problem as an emergency. So it's hard to think of long term, big picture points of view. As a comparison, by way of example, it is not possible to make plans for creative room additions to your home when the house is on fire. The first thing you need to do is put out the fire. I definitely do not have all the answers, or know all the facts, but I do get the feeling that many people experience the immigrant situation as an emergency that has to be dealt with immediately. But I have no doubt that you are right, many people making a tremendous contribution today came from very humble roots, including from roots of undocumented immigrants.

I think most of the time doctors recommend the "hard" Proteins like tuna or chicken because they supposedly keep you full longer. For most people, Beans would get digested quicker because they are soft and you'd be hungry again sooner. But you say that does not happen, so this is apparently not an issue for you. Another reason to stay away from refried beans is because they are usually pretty high in fat the way they are made in restaurants. But you say the ones you use have 0 fat. You must have a fat-free brand because I think in general that is not the way they usually are. So, the high fat issue is not relevant for you either. So, just from a non-medical, uneducated point of view, I can't think of any reason not to eat beans. I think most people agree that beans, in general, are heathy.

I went to Dr. Kirshenbaum in Denver. His web site is in my signature below. He charges $9950, and fills are $15 whenever you need them after that. There's an active thread on him right now if you want some more info. Just search for "Kirshenbaum" and you'll find it.

This may be a good idea, but it would involve a constitutional amendment. That's a mighty big can of worms to open. It may be necessary, but no easy task to accomplish.

I'm all for enforcing the law. But isn't it at least a little bit embarrassing that all the enforcement talk is directed to the people crossing the border, while we do virtually nothing to enforce the laws about hiring illegals? It makes us look so self-centered and hypocritical. This point is not lost on the illegal aliens themselves, or the Mexican government. My focus on enforcing laws against hiring illegals is because I think that is what might actually work. It's pretty hard to make a strong argument that giving out "citations" to illegal aliens is going to stop them. It never has so far. But as the example with the mice shows, if you remove the cheese, they will stop coming. That is what might actually work. But the main point is, this is not an argument for or against "enforcing the laws." I'm all for that. I'm just arguing that we should pay attention to enforcing the laws that might actually make a difference. Can anyone make a credible argument that building a fence and "busting" illegal aliens is likely to work better than removing the incentive they have to come here? If there we no jobs available to these people, why would they keep coming? This is a solution that is totally within our own control, that we can certainly succeed at doing if we want to, and that might actually work. The reason we don't do it, of course, is that this would involve taking responsibility for our own actions instead of blaming others. We are really good at blaming those horrible "illegal aliens." We are really bad at facing our own responsibility and fault in this situation. Who wants to see American employers getting busted on the nightly news. It's a much cozier feeling to see pictures of border patrol agents handcuffing illegals and tossing them into a van for the punishment they so richly deserve.

I do feel a lot of compassion for those who are less fortunate, and I know I would cross the border illegally if I had to to take care of my family. But still, because resources are finite, I ultimately agree that we have to put ourselves first. The thing that is hard for me to understand is the solutions being proposed. Many people, not necessarily Carlene, argue that we need to build a border fence and make stiffer penalties for illegals etc. But I just don't see how things like that could work. If I had a problem with a lot of mice entering my house, and I had big pieces of cheese in every room, what would I do about the mouse problem? Would I build fences and set up mouse traps? Or would I just get rid of the cheese? People come here because of the jobs and benefits. If we want to stop them, we need to stop making the jobs and benefits available. That means focusing on enforcement of the laws that Americans are breaking, not Mexicans. There are other parts of the solution that need to be in place as well, like helping Mexico become a decent place to live so people want to stay there. But one thing is for sure, things like fences and mouse traps will never work. They may help politicians win elections, but they will never actually solve the problem.

No one is disputing your right to ask the question. I am simply asking you to consider opening your mind beyond the same point you keep making over and over again. You seem to have the point of view that any person who is reluctant to have an abortion, or who considers it something to be avoided, is automatically a person who agrees that abortion is "baby killing." But that is not the case. Obviously a fetus is an entity that probably will, with good health, some day develop into a baby. No one is denying that. And very few people who support a woman's right to choose take pleasure in stopping this process from fetus to baby. But when you hear this, your response is: "You see, you do agree that abortion is baby killing. If a fetus was not a baby, why would you ever be reluctant to have an abortion." etc. etc. But this logic does not work. You make a leap that is too large in your argument. There are many reasons why people would be reluctant to have an abortion even if they do not agree that it is killing a baby. The main reason is because, of course, as everyone knows, the fetus will often develop into a baby. An unwanted pregnancy is obviously not a happy thing. Either the fetus or the grown, adult woman is going to have to pay a heavy price. You insist that all the woman has to do is drop off the unwanted child like dry cleaning and everyone can be a winner. But this simply does not work for many women. It is quite often much more complicated than that. The only real issue here is, who gets to make the decision of how it is handled. The woman, or the state. So, when you hear pro choice people express reluctance to have an abortion, perhaps some day you can consider that this does not "prove" that they really agree with you that abortion is "baby killing."

I don't want to speak for tanderson but I can say this for myself. What you refuse to understand, gadget, is that virtually all pro-choice people don't "believe in" abortion. Except for the few mythical feminists you like to drag out, no one is happy about an abortion. But that is not the issue at all. The issue is, who gets to choose what happens with an unwanted pregnancy. Who gets to decide what the woman does. Should she have the freedom to control her own life and make her own decisions? Or should you and others like you get to force a decision on her and impose your view of morality on her through legislation. But truly, it is a tiresome waste of time for you to respond with feigned surprise every time a pro-choice person says that they don't favor abortion. Of course they don't favor abortion. No one does. But that's not the issue.

I think you want to be smaller because every ad on TV and every bulletin board on the highway tells you that you need to be extremely thin to be a worthwhile human being. You are very fortunate to have the support from your husband and friends regarding the way you are now. Many people don't have that and it makes it much harder to take a stand and feel good about yourself. It sounds to me like you are doing great and should just focus on being healthy and feeling good. Congratulations on the 100 pound loss, and thanks for sharing your story. It helps us newbies to hear about a longer term success story.

I can't help but take note of the breathtaking hypocricy that I see on this board. The other day I was run through the meat grinder for making a joke about christians and the death penalty. And now 396 accuses a substantial number of women on this board of being "killers." Remember this is not a joke. He is serious. But for some reason the righteous indignation we saw a few days ago from the supposed "christians" is conspicuously absent. No one is berating the moderators for letting 396 continue to "spew his hate." No one is telling 396 that he has "crossed the line." I wonder why? As the Church Lady used to ask, "Could it be . . . Satan???" But I don't think it is Satan. Rather I think it is just hypocricy, closed-mindedness and arrogance. In fact, some people on this board are so full of hypocricy and arrogance I do believe I can see it from here, squeezing out the bottom of their trousers.

I agree we need to put Americans first. That's why we need to come down like a sledgehammer on the American employers who hire illegals and make this whole mess possible. If it were not for them, if there were no jobs, why would anyone cross the border? These American criminal employers are breaking the law and "they are NO different from a drug dealer. They are breaking the laws just like a drug dealer." I say put the burden where it belongs. On the people who are causing the problem.

Rachel Ray has been banded. She weaved her own lap band from the ligaments and small intestine of the pygmy camel indigenous to the Sahara dessert. She made the port from sun dried camel lips, and she created the only known "dry fill" system for lap bands, using a particularly fine grain of sand found only along the border between Libya and Algeria.

In case anyone was wondering: <CITE>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source bip·py /ˈbɪpi/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bip-ee]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun, plural -pies. Slang. <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>an unspecified part of the anatomy (usually used in the phrase You bet your (sweet) bippy). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <HR class=ety>[Origin: nonce word of uncert. orig.] <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><CITE>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. :heh::heh::heh::heh::heh::heh::heh::heh::heh::heh:</CITE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I think in general people here are very understanding and supportive of each other's difficulties sticking with eating plans, etc. All of us have had similar difficulties or we would not need the lap band. The large majority of posts here are very supportive. Sometimes, when a person appears to be blaming the world for their problems, another person may respond with a little "tough love" to help the person understand that ultimately they are responsible for their own lives. But even there, this is another form of support. I think you will see that your first impression here may not be completely accurate. I don't think people "put each other down" or show a lot of "negativity about having a hard time sticking with an eating plan," etc. I just don't think that is a very accurate description of most of the posts here. Concerning your particular circumstances, the thing you need to understand is that the best advice out there is that "things will be different after you start getting fills." That is what the band is designed for. Having the lap band is not about being on a diet, involving starvation and all the same "will power" issues as before. The whole purpose of getting the band is so that you don't have to live with those things any more. The band is about getting the proper level of restriction, through fills, so that you don't need will power. If you are hungry all the time and eating like you did before, then the answer to that problem is to start getting fills. As for getting support with emotional issues, I think you will find that that is available here as well. But please keep one thing in mind: You do not need to solve all your emotional problems with eating in order to have the band work for you. The band will work even with the emotional problems, as long as you have proper fills and proper restriction. Yes, you can defeat the band by deliberately trying to sabotage yourself by drinking McDonald's milkshakes all day. But aside from that, the band is there to help you even though you have not solved all your emotional problems with eating. The band is a tool that makes it much harder to overeat -- as long as you have the fills you need to create proper restriction. This is usually enough to help people lose weight even if they still do have emotional problems relating to eating.

I also want to mention that unjury recently sent me an e-mail about a new product of theirs. They are now making those concentrated test tube things as well. I have not tried them, but they might be good. Here's what they sent me (it's sort of long). They claim that the body can absorb much more of the Protein with their product. Like I say, I have not tried it: Dear UNJURY Customer: Subject: liquid Proteins in Test Tubes: Mostly Collagen, Very Low Protein Scores1 You know Pepsi says it tastes better than Coke, and that AT&T/Cingular drops fewer calls than Verizon. Today, we’re going to compare something more important to your health, the protein nutrition value of several protein brands. Different types of protein –from whey, soy, egg or collagen – provide very different nutrition value to your body. About 4 years ago, the Institute of Medicine of The National Academies proposed a scoring system to assign a nutritional value to different proteins. It is called PDCAAS2, but rather than use so many initials, we’re just going to just say "Protein Score". Just like a history test in school, the Protein Score goes from 0 to 100. You can calculate the Protein Score of a protein supplement if you know the amino acid profile of the supplement, or if you know what kind of proteins are in it, and how much. This update looks at two protein supplement brands, "Profect"3 and "New-Whey"3 that come in "test tubes". (Some people call them "bullets" or "shooters".) Both of these are made mostly with collagen protein, and collagen protein alone gets a 0 (zero) Protein Score…out of 100. But their labels say they also contain two high scoring proteins, whey and casein, and that would affect their Protein Score. So we wanted to know how much whey and casein they contain, and we thought you might want to know too…but we couldn’t find any information about that on their websites nor on their labels (except for the order of ingredients – hydrolyzed collagen protein is listed first). So we sent a sample of each – Profect and New-Whey – to a respected independent laboratory, Covance, Inc.4 ( Covance: the CRO for Drug Development Services ) for analysis. We had each analyzed for their amino acid content – so we could calculate a Protein Score for each brand. We calculated the Protein Scores – using the IOM formula – and composition estimates on those results. (see Appendix A) Results 5 : 1.The Protein Score for Profect is 6, and the Protein Score for New-Whey is 4, each out of a possible 100. For details on the calculations, see Appendix C. 1 We are using the PDCAAS method of scoring proposed by the Institute of Medicine of The National Academies in the book, Dietary Reference Intakes, ISBN 0-309-08537-3. 2 PDCAAS: Protein Digestibility Adjusted Amino Acid Scoring 3 Profect is trademark of Protica, Inc., New-Whey is a trademark of IDS Sports 4 About Covance: Covance routinely conducts testing for government agencies such as USDA and FDA and is sometimes chosen by the FDA to develop official testing methods themselves. 5 More detailed results in Appendix A UNJURY® Protein 1 800 517 5111 Nutrition@UNJURY.com 6 Recommended Dietary Allowances, the Institute of Medicine of The National Academies, in the book, Dietary Reference Intakes, ISBN 0-309-08537-3 7 A 200 pound person would need to consume approximately 1 gallon; the requirements for other body weights are proportional. For example, a 300 pound person would need to consume approximately 1.5 gallons. 2. The estimated composition of the protein in Profect and New-Whey: both brands are estimated to be at least 95% collagen protein. For details on the calculations, see Appendix C. PROTEIN COMPOSITION: UNJURY, PROFECT AND NEW-WHEY 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%New-WheyProfectUNJURY® Whey proteinand caseinproteincombinedEstimated %CollagenProtein100% Whey Protein (Isolate)95% Collagen Protein95% Collagen Protein 3. So how much Profect or New-Whey would a person need to consume to meet the Recommended Dietary Allowances6 (RDAs) for all Essential Amino Acids (EAAs)? The RDAs are based on body weight. So, for example, a 200 pound adult would need to consume about 40 servings -- almost a gallon7 per day of Profect or New-Whey (if these were the only protein source), to meet the RDAs for all Essential Amino Acids. In contrast, only 3.6 servings of UNJURY are required to meet the same RDAs. Note: It might be possible – but complicated and difficult – for a person to combine very specific foods to help offset some of the Protein Score (EAA) deficiencies in Profect or New-Whey. To do this consistently, a person would need to: a) know the EAA composition of the foods, and know how each and every EAA "insufficiency" in a supplement is remedied by an "oversufficiency" of each of same EAAs in the foods. Such foods would have to be consumed within a short time of consuming the low Protein Score supplement. For more, see Appendix B. So even though Profect or New-Whey contains 25 or 42 grams of protein per serving, its low scoring protein does not provide you all same benefits as a protein with a high Protein Score. Profect or New-Whey needed per day www.UNJURY.com UNJURY® Protein 1 800 517 5111 Nutrition@UNJURY.com Welcome to the UNJURY Homepage 8 Recommended Dietary Allowances, the Institute of Medicine of The National Academies. Page 680 in PDF version. The 3Ts : As always, UNJURY focuses on delivering the 3Ts: Taste, Trust and Tolerability. We believe Trust very much includes protein whose nutrition value you can always confidently rely upon. For that reason, we will never sell a collagen-based product. Kind regards, Martha and Jerome UNJURY Protein Appendix A ESSENTIAL AMINO ACID CONTENT – SELECTED SAMPLES mg of each EAA / g of PROTEIN ESSENTIAL AMINO ACID (EAA) UNJURY Profect New-Whey HISTIDINE 18.0 6.0 5.6 ISOLEUCINE 67.0 14.0 13.9 LEUCINE 114.0 28.4 27.6 LYSINE 98.0 35.4 34.7 METHIONINE (+ CYSTINE) 48.0 11.2 11.0 PHENYLALANINE (+TYROSINE) 61.0 33.7 32.0 THREONINE 71.0 16.8 16.1 TRYPTOPHAN 22.0 Limiting-> 0.35 Limiting-> 0.24 VALINE 61.0 23.8 22.7 Appendix B A note on the difficulty of combining of two low-scoring proteins to try to create a high-scoring protein combination: It is possible for a person to do this, but it is complex – that is, it would likely require detailed knowledge about the amino acid composition of foods, along with careful attention, for the reasons below: The Institute of Medicine referenced those EAAs which are " most likely limiting amino acids (see Glossary below) in common food protein sources."8 These included the sulfur amino acids - methionine + cysteine, and tryptophan). In Profect and New-Whey: tryptophan is also the limiting EAA and the combination of methionine + cysteine is also relatively low among EAAs, based on the RDAs. So consistently achieving a complementary combination would be unlikely without detailed knowledge of, and attention to, the EAA composition of the foods needed to complement UNJURY® Protein 1 800 517 5111 Nutrition@UNJURY.com Welcome to the UNJURY Homepage Appendix C - Calculations Details on the PDCAAS calculations: The limiting amino acid for both of those brands (see Glossary) is tryptophan. For Profect: 0.35 mg tryptophan / 7mg for the IOM reference protein1 x 100% for digestibility (the actual Profect digestibility score might well be lower-- in the mid 90s, but we don’t have the exact score so we assumed 100, the highest digestibility. Because of the low overall score, the exact digestibility isn’t material.) yields a PDCAAS of 5, and we showed 6 in the chart to over-account for any possible minor rounding effects. For New-Whey: 0.24 mg tryptophan, yields a corresponding 3.4%, which we similarly rounded to 4%. For UNJURY: 18 mg Histidine and a digestibility score of 99, the established score for whey protein yields a 100. Details on the composition estimate calculations: Typically, whey protein and casein protein contain approximately 16 mg Tryptophan per gram of protein or more. Collagen contains no Tryptophan. Because Profect contains, according to the Covance analysis, 0.35 mg Tryptophan per g of protein, we can estimate the percentage of whey and casein (combined) as 0.35/16.0 = 2.2%. There are possible errors in this calculation in both directions: a) there is little Tryptophan in the product so the chance for a small error exists. we assumed 10 mg of Tryptophan per 100 g of finished product, even though the actual lab result is: "<10" mg (that is, less than 10 mg) of Tryptophan per 100 g of finished product. The "<10" mg result is the case for both the Profect and New-Whey samples. To avoid overstating the percentage of protein from collagen, an incomplete protein, we simply used 95%. Glossary Amino Acid ("AA") Amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein. There are 20 different amino acids in the human body. Essential Amino Acid ("EAA") Of the 20 amino acids, 9 are called "Essential" (or "Indispensable") because they cannot be synthesized, or manufactured, by the human body. They must be supplied in the diet. If an insufficient amount of any one EAA is consumed over a long enough period of time, symptoms of protein deficiency will develop. Limiting Amino Acid This is the EAA which is present in the least amount, relative to the requirements. As noted in the IOM book, "…the ‘limiting amino acid’ will determine the nutritional value of the …protein in the diet." The net protein utilization is profoundly affected by the limiting amino acid content.

I can really relate. I had good restriction after surgery and lost weight pretty well. Now the restriction almost gone, and I'm back to eating the way I did before. I've gained 5 pounds already. When I had restriction I thought I had "learned new ways of eating," etc. But no, the second I was able to eat more again, I ate more. I'm going in for my first fill on May 30th. I hope it gives me some restriction again quick. I hope it all works out for your insurance. If by chance it does not, you may want to think about Dr. Kirshenbaum in Denver. It's $9950. I'm sure you know about that already, but just thought I'd mention it. $20,000 seems pretty high. Also, I don't know your financial situation, but if you do need to take on more debt for this, it is not because you are a bad person who can't stop stuffing your face. This is much more complicated than that. This is a medical issue, not an episode of personal failure. Your health is what matters here. I believe that the money part will work itself out.