RestlessMonkey

Does anyone know why we are supposed to supplement with Calcium Citrate and NOT Calcium Carbonate? I just "took" one of the calcium citrate supplements I got from my doc and aside from the icky taste it took FOREVER for that horse tablet to dissolve. I don't have an hour and a half a day (30 min each) to sit and let a supplement dissolve. I'm busy and will only get busier. I don't mind eating 1/4 cup of food. I don't mind avoiding bread. But I draw the line at those calcium supplements! What do you do? Do you know why Ca Carbonate is "bad"? HELP? I know I won't take them....and that's foolish...

HEADHUNTER! Hugs my friend! How nice it is to see you back on here...even if just for a short while! How've you been? I've often thought of all your even, fair advice about choosing the correct WLS FOR YOU....you always were a sound, reasonable source for facts about pretty much any WLS. And of course, while I would expect nothing less from you, how pleased I am to see you congratulate "Failure" for her loss. You always were quite a cheerleader for people's success :redface:

I have hesitated to post here because I am at a loss as to how to effectively convey how truly marvelous I think Dr. Cavazos and his staff are. I can use hyperbole like "best" "nicest" "most skilled" "caring" but those words are overused. I'll probably have to resort to them because they are all true. I can tell you at age 53, when I had my surgery, I seem to have recovered faster with less issues than many many younger posters I read about. Partly that's me, but largely that's due to the deft skill and compassion of Dr. Cavazos and his able staff, both medical and office. Gas pains post op? Not this chickie; I am sure he removed most of it before he closed me up. Do all surgeons do this? No way. He did. Aftercare? Good lord the patience this man shows...never a frown, never a lecture, but he takes time to explain his rationale behind ever fill, every diet (pre, post op, etc) every procedure. He asks how I am and I think he really wants to know! He is the most "accessible" doctor I've ever encountered. No question is too foolish or frivolous. His NP Claudia is just a wonder. Period. She's always made me feel like she and I are partners in my health care; she chats with me as if she had oodles of time (you know she doesn't) and is also great at explaining any all and everything. Any good sense I show on this board, any solid info, I've gotten from Dr. Cavazos and his staff. His office staff, especially Maria and Ebony, are also great, and I'd NEVER have gotten through all the insurance stuff without Nadia. Everyone there, though, is just top drawer, even those I haven't named. Dr. Cavazos is an educated, practiced, marvelous surgeon. He is patient and kind, he is caring, he is easily approached and understood, but make no mistake he is a deft skilled top surgeon. I can't imagine a better group of people to help a person navigate through weight loss surgery, and find a way to a healthier life.

If I may approach this from a different direction.... If you are being screened for, say, Diabetes, and you don't have the disease, then the screening may be a waste of your time and money. If it is done incompetently it doesn't harm you because you don't have the disease. BUT if you have it...IF you have it... you would expect the screening to be performed properly, you'd want the information interpreted correctly, and you (probably, unless you're in denial) would want medical intervention to prevent worsening of the disease, future loss of a limb, an eye, kidneys, your life.... In much the same way, the psych consult is a screening tool. Not everyone will test "positive" and unfortunately, some who do the screening are lackadaisical or flat out incompetent or apathetic. But the facts are that some people get the band and freak out. Some sane, happy, "normal" people who pine, yearn, DREAM of the band come to and thank "Oh my dear GOD get this OUT of me". Some "normal" people, when they find their food intake is restricted, turn to alcohol, drugs, sex. It's funny unless it happens to you. SO...our best bet is to get the consult, HOPE it is performed properly, and HOPE it catches those who need it. We aren't all alike, you know. We may all be fat, but that's a minor similarity. Each person is, of course, entitled to think it's a waste, and some of the consults described here ARE wasteful. That's too darned bad. Bottom line, though. Spartan, however flamboyant, is correct. No WLS should be undertaken lightly and without research, thought, and every medical and psych test we can get. If you are one of the many who have no issues with the band, the surgery (or bypass, whatever) then good. If you are one of the few for whom the band would be a dreadful disaster, let's hope it catches you.

I think that if you don't want advice, you shouldn't ask. It's tacky to get "advice" that isn't what you want to hear, and insult the person or persons who disagree with you. But some people thrive on drama, apparently. Whatever. Ignoring the rules early on is a recipe for disaster. I agree with Spartan; lets see a year from now how well doing what you want works for you; it didn't seem to keep your weight down preband (it doesn't for most of us) but the band is magic, right?

AH! I thought, like the rest of us, you were here to give advice, not just brag on your alcohol consumption! Apologies! As long as you are just "sharing" and not implying that it's ok for the OP, at 4 weeks, to drink what s/he wants, then forgive me for misunderstanding!

Minime I can not believe that you truly think that if something works for you, that it should work for everyone. For some reason, something Spartan said apparently got your dander up, but bottom line, we're individuals and following our doc's advice, at least initially, is the smartest thing to do. And sounds like AA might be in your future....

Apparently the advice "do what your doctor says" is hard for some people to accept. That's cool; the band IS reversible.

of course eventually you have to "finesse" the band. Four weeks, though, is a little early. If I may pull an example from my personal experience; carbonation is one of the few items that most surgeons agree should be forbidden (and they do seem to disagree about a LOT, I know). Once I'd had my band a year and was doing well, my surgeon told me to go for it if it didn't cause me discomfort (in my case I missed beer, not diet cokes or such LOL) So I do very occasionally indulge. I still have a lot to lose, though, and have to "weigh" (oh ha ha!) my desire for a beer against my desire to lose weight. So we DO have to use judgment; however to start off disregarding your surgeon is imprudent, at least in my experience. We need to learn the ropes before we start to modify our approach.

Personally, I initially ignored my physician's advice, because, HEY I'm human, Right? No one is perfect, right? This is life, right? uh huh. I didn't get the band because my liver didn't shrink. I learned the hard way to do what my doc says, and if I do not trust him/her, I NEED A NEW DOC. Ignoring your surgeon's advice is akin to playing Russian Roulette or having unprotected sex. You may get away with it, you may not. By all means, as grown ups, decide what you want. But don't expect those of us who know better to applaud or recommend acting recklessly. If you are 4 weeks post op and know better than your surgeon, well good for you. I'm pretty bright, and I didn't.

Bypass impairs absorption and can make you intoxicated more quickly. If you have the band and it happens, odds are it's psychological. But by all means, do what you want. Why on earth would you listen to your doctor? What a foolish notion.

Hi All! I'll ask my surgeon this when I see him in October but inquiring minds are curious now. What do you think is the rationale behind not drinking for a period BEFORE you eat? I understand the "no drinking during" and in fact when I do, it HURTS. I understand the "no drinking afterward" and in fact if I just allow the time my doc requires, it HURTS! :w00t: But before? liquids flow through the stoma down into the lower part of the stomach easily, unless you are uber tight. As far as I know they don't linger there long, either. So I can't quite figure it out. Anyone know, or have a good guess?

Important info in this thread....

If Susan's husband had to step in, apparently this is bugging her way more than she'll admit. I'd get MY husband to post that Susan's a power hungry fool, but he's busy. And why state the obvious anyway? If she's so unhappy Max, maybe YOU can keep her occupied and off LBT.

KC I would've taken him out for you. I'd have gotten another "A lady doesn't blah blah blah" lecture, but I'd have done it. :tongue2: BUT...I think we both overcame our upbringing. LOL

Ok Here's a true story from MY misspent youth. Kindergarten, age 5. Boy was chasing all the girls around during recess and either pinching them, pulling their hair, or pulling their dresses up (this was 1960. Girls wore dresses). He came up to me; I stood my ground and punched him dead in the nose. Knocked him down. (No I had no brothers and had never hit another soul in my life). We were marched to the director's office. When asked WHY did you hit him I said "He was making everyone cry. I had to stop him". LOL Fallout? He was mortified and never hit another girl, at least in kindergarten. I was told "ladies don't hit" and was a minor hero. Maybe that's why I feel it's good to take on things (people, institutions) that I feel are malfunctioning. True story.

Ok, here goes. Laws exist for a reason. I had an issue with a poster months back. He was, well, rude and escalated to nasty. Each post I made in response, I tried to de-fuse, be conciliatory, etc. Each time he would ratchet it up a notch. I realized what I was doing wasn't working so I reported him and STOPPED communicating with him. I also PM'd plain for help. It took a while, but eventually (a day or so? Don't remember) he was banned. During that "waiting period" I DID NOT engage him. Just because he called ME a bowel movement didn't give me the right to call him something nasty. See my point? Headhunter was out of bounds but he was NOT alone. His "partner in crime" should've been banned also. She wasn't. Why not? She seemed to stalk him and bait him, and some of her posts were just as hateful and nasty, just not as "creative". If someone steals your car, in this country at least that doesn't give a person permission to go steal THEIR car. And yet the other person wasn't banned too. Why not? Many of us, in the absence of good info, assume this was a vendetta against HH. Maybe we're wrong, but how would we know? As they say, actions speak louder than words. SHE was still posting. I commented on this and was finally told by plain "How do you know she wasn't chastised" (I paraphrase) Hmm, digesting this I realized...HOW DO I KNOW SHE WAS? Why are some things blatanly public and then OOPS time for a team huddle, closed doors, "private communication". Either the rules are broken or they aren't. Why the grey area? SHE should've been banned too. Period. And if we asked why she wasn't, a good answer should've been forthcoming, not nudges, innuendo, "I wish I could tell you but I can't" etc. Later, I was participating in a thread and the "other" person involved most publicly in the HH fiasco made a snide comment. I told her "If you don't like it don't read it". She jumped on me, told me "You don't own the board" etc. What happened? SUSAN stepped in and slapped us both down publicly. What was THAT about? And why is THAT ok for public fodder but the other not? I don't give a rip about Susan trying to spat at me. I wasn't doing anything wrong or untoward. But do you see my point? The rules are not being applied fairly, evenly, without prejudice. Another case in point is a poster who many MANY of us see as a bully, at the least. But she was given seeming laissez faire to ride roughshod as she saw fit. Why? Friends in the mods? I think one of the major flaws is the mod system. We ARE human. Mods too. We people can't help but have favorites, others who get on our nerves, others who we see as boring as dirt, etc. The mods should be the rule enforcers. It's hard to be part of the crowd and then be able to step back and police the crowd as well. That's almost unfair to ask. I think Susan should be removed as a Mod. I think no matter how loudly it is proclaimed that she is fair doesn't make it so. Moreover though the entire mod structure as defined by LBT needs to be revamped. Lastly this is LAP-BAND® talk. I commend you for the variety of experiences you try to produce. Good and bad. I also find the threads for other types of WLS enlightening and informative. But you have in the past had mods who ALMOST seemed condescending to those of us with bands. Mods who seemed to imply that banded people were idiots if they thought it was the best option. Is that what you intend? There are other forums for the sleeve, for bypass. This IS a band site. Differing opinions are healthy but not when mods step in with judgments. Mods should be above the fray. They aren't. Rules/Laws should be applied evenly. They aren't. There should be no reason to "hide" someone's punishment. I don't mean to put 'em in the stocks and let us walk by, but if someone is told to watch it, it needs to be out here, not behind the scenes. And the application of the rules needs to be fair and even handed, not dependent on if a moderator worked 70 hours or had a fight with a spouse or has a soft spot for this poster over that one. I am unhappy and prone to leave NOT in a "take my ball and go home" way, and not because someone I liked was (rightly) banned, but because I'm uncomfortable seeing inequities and not taking a stand. It's how I was raised, we all have our "buttons", I guess. Rules are rules. In the real world, often they are unevenly applied based on privilege, money and power. One would hope here in "cyber space" that things could be more right and fair. Can't you at least TRY to be unbiased? Susan should step out for a bit, at the least. But she isn't the "whole" problem, any more than Headhunter is. The mod system needs to be revamped. And an update: I believe I misused the word "banned" or if not, perhaps needed a modifyer. I don't think ANY of the posters I mentioned; HH and his sparring partner, the "gentleman" who called me a bowel movement, nor the "bully" should've been banned permanently. I meant, I supposed, "banned for a set time" or suspended, allowed to cool off. Even being in Texas, a capital punishment state, I still think people deserve a few chances. I KNOW HH had/has a lot of productive content he could contribute, and the others may very well have the same; now we'll never know. I think there needs to be guidelines for "first offense" etc...rarely is an infraction so egregious that it deserves permanent banishment.

Alex, truly if you can't see that this is wrong, that it smacks of favoritism, then truly my PMing you won't achieve anything. I don't mean to be a drama queen about it. But if Headhunter said "please post any warnings I got" and you don't, that must mean the mods don't want it known. One cannot help but wonder why? And as many of us have stated, it's not only, not just, not even that a member was banned for infracting the rules. That is as it SHOULD be. It is how it was handled, how subsequent questions have been handled, that is the big issue. Speaking only for myself I'm a grown up. I try to be helpful. I try not to nurture dissonance. But anytime the "law" is practiced in private chambers, any time punishments are kept private, any time the truth must be hidden and obfuscated, something is very wrong. If you don't agree, my PMing you won't really be of help to either of us. I am honestly sad about this; I have so enjoyed getting to be a little part of so many new bandsters' experiences, and in turn learning from the pros on here who have been banded longer. But this is wrong. If so many cogent, intelligent, long term members are ticked, odds are it isn't because we're all giddy about a certain poster and piqued that he was banned. Odds are there is something wrong on a deeper level, there's a rat in the walls, as it were. You must know this. I assume you've built the "infrastructure" of the board. Maybe it's time to look at it, check for cracks and stresses. Maybe you should hire some mods, enforce the rules across the board. That would be a good start. I don't know how to fix it, I just know it needs to be fixed.

Hmmm...Elizabethsew told me I could post a PM of hers when I complained of a bully and was told effectively that I could "report" her but she wasn't going to be banned. Was that wrong of her? This is just assinine. It really is. I believe this most likely means the warnings weren't done as stated, the "ethnic slurs" etc didn't occur as stated. Good grief. How wicked to besmirch anyone...ANYONE...and not give them recourse. I'm done here. I know you won't miss me much, although I feel I've given prudent sound advice over and over again. But I won't be a part of an organization with such a fatal flaw at it's core.

I have to be honest, though, when I say that because of Susan's propensity to post and then pull, or to pull other's posts, I would be prone to believe the flip side, creating posts that "weren't". I'm just not all that trusting of her actions, because of past experience. OH and I came up with that all on my own; no one put that thought in my head. Well, maybe reading people like George Orwell, but he doesn't post on here.