anonemouse

Here's the thread: http://www.lapbandtalk.com/interesting-article-t27651.html?t=27651

I posted an article a couple months ago about how diet drinks can actually make people crave sugar, let me see if I can find it.

Sorry, I skimmed the posts and missed that part.

I consider all my diets to be "last stands". The thing with the "last stand" mentality is just that, eventually we get into a rut where we think of all our diets as that last attempt. We think, "Before I do something as drastic as surgery, I should make this one last attempt." We succeed at the attempt, but the results, like all the other diet attempts in the past, are just temporary. Eventually, we realixe that we are back where we started. Once again, we think, "Well, I was able to lose XX pounds last time, I'll try it again before I turn to surgery. This time, I'll succeed in keeping the weight off." So we diet again, lose lots of weight again, and eventually regain it all again. It turns into a vicious cycle. I think most people who have WLS get to the point where they realize that what they are doing isn't working. They may be able to work hard and lose weight, but it is always temporary. All of that said, I think that if you are not 100% committed to having this surgery at this point, it will be better for you to wait. I think you need to wait until you are completely ready to work with the band. If you don't, I think you will wind up regretting the decision.

That's great! I was about to ask what a seemingly smart woman was thinking by giving strange men rides until I read the last couple of lines.

I think you need to be able to differentiate between head hunger and actual belly hunger. I am not banded yet, but I know that I will sometimes go back for seconds or even thirds even though I am not really hungry anymore. My head and body just think they should be hungry, so I eat. I'm not an expert, but that may be what people talk about when they say that they no longer feel hungry for seconds. They've figured out that most of the time when they thought they were hungry for seconds, that it was just their head telling them that they were still hungry and not their stomach.

I don't think anyone is criticising the people who actually need to be obsessive about these things, like you do. For you, being obsessive about these things is healthy because you have to monitor your intake. But for those people that are otherwise average, it can go too far. Most average people should lose weight if they are eating a healthy diet and making sure they exercise. I don't think they should have to count calories, if they are doing that. If they are obsessing over calories to the point where they literally freak out if they went over their limit by 20 or 30 calories, that is an unhealthy obsession, IMO.

This topic was brought up in the HPV vaccine thread, and I wanted to get everybody's opinion on it. I think that sex before marriage is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it, along with living together, gives couples a chance to see what their marriage might be like. Sex is a huge part of marriage, and bad sex can undermine a marriage, IMO. Plus, it helps you figure out if what you are feeling is true love or just plain lust. I personally believe that the push to make teens abstain until marriage may actually be contributing to the high divorce rate. If people think that they have to be married to have sex, I think they might rush into a marriage because they might not know the difference between lust and love. Take my former roommate, for example. She and her boyfriend dated for 4 years before they got married. To my knowledge, they were both virgins when they married. They separated within 6 months of marrying and were officially divorced the day before their first anniversary. I really believe that the disgrace in having sex before marriage and living together (he was Mormon) contributed to the failure of their marriage. I think that if they had been allowed to see what each other was truly like, apart from dates, they wouldn't have gotten married.

I've noticed that, too, Green. To me, before I enter a debate, I think I should know as much about the topic as possible, or at least as much as possible about the viewpoint I am favoring. Going into a debate with very little knowledge and stating incorrect facts like they were proven doesn't do anything but make you look ignorant and cast doubt on the validity of your viewpoint in other arguments that you might have taken place in. Before I get into an argument with someone, I like make sure that I can back myself up.

I agree. While I definitely think that it was unhealthy habits that got a lot of us into the situations we are in with our weight, going too far the other way isn't healthy, either. Weighing yourself, counting calories, and exercising is good. Getting obsessed with any of those is just as bad as when we were obsessed with the food we were eating before we were banded.

Yes, but you care about your friend. I honestly don't think Anna Nicole's mother cares that much about her. I think she just wants the money. Her behavior up to this point says "I'm a spiteful, money-hungry hag!" more than "I miss my daughter so much!".

OT: OUSooner, I took a look at your website, and your kids are so cute!

Yeah, her mom comes across as hypocritical bitch, to be honest. Her sister is the same way. I don't think anything either of them says can be trusted.

I thought the same thing when I first read Ron's post, but I didn't want to be the first to say something. I was hoping that I was just reading too much into what he was saying because he wasn't my favorite person. But if other people saw it too, then I guess I wasn't wrong.

My condolences to you and your wife, T_O_M. I hope your wife feels better soon.

One concept that I think should be done more often is waiting to have children. My parents were much older than the average new parents (at least in the late '70s and early '80s) when they had my brother and me. My mom was 34 when she had my brother and 39 when she had be. I think we were much better off and better adjusted than the five kids one of my highschool classmates popped out before she was 22. Seriously, I remember seeing her first baby at the end of our freshman year, and I saw her in Wal-Mart a year or so ago with four more surrounding her.

This reminds me of me. It wasn't unusual for me to be hanging around the school at 4:00 or 4:40 (let out at 2:45) when I was in elementary school. I understood, though. My mom ran my dad's clinic, so there were times she couldn't leave on time. That was one reason I always carried at least one book with me at all times. I never knew when I would be left with nothing to do for a couple of hours.

Yeah, if owning guns prevented crime, New York City would have a pretty low level of crime. It doesn't, which shows the flaws in the theory.

I think all of you have said what I was trying to say, only clearer. I was raised to believe that marriage is a partnership and that both spouses had to make compromise. To me, if one spouse gets their way whenever there is a disagreement, there is no compromise. To me, the idea that there is one dominant figure in the household is totally alien. In my parents' household, my dad is the primary breadwinner, but my mom is the one that pays the bills. If there are major decisions to be made, they make them together after discussion and both parties compromising, if necessary.

See, I guess it just doesn't make much sense to me. I understand the intent behind it, but I guess I am just not made that way. I don't think it would even occur to me to always submit to a man just because he's a man and my husband. To me, the success of a marriage should depend on both spouses, not having the responsibility lay on the shoulders of one. I was raised to believe that I was completely equal to men, and that I should never let them treat me (by their actions or lack thereof) like I was second to them or like I was a fragile flower that needs to be protected. But, differences are what make the world go 'round. This just happens to be one of those things that I don't think I'll ever truly understand, because it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't want you to think I am attacking you, because this statement isn't intended in that way. I really want to try to understand you, but I don't know the best words to get my point across with sensitivity. That said, to me, these are two contradictory statements. To me, what you said is that your husband has the last word. If he agrees with you, you take that action. If not, it's what he says, goes. In other words, you are basically doing what he says, but believing that you actually had some input, when IMO you don't.

But for those time periods, those causes were seen as immoral by most Christian standards and beliefs. I think that, eventually, the fight for gay rights will be seen in the same light as the fights for women's suffrage and for racial equality. It may be many years until then, but eventually the people opposing gay rights will be classified in the same group as the folks who opposed marriage between people of two different races and the people who opposed suffrage.

So abolitionists and suffragists should have just given up the fight because the laws based on the opposition's viewpoint were held by the majority? We all know, from our history classes, that the majority rule isn't necessarily the "right" rule.

And we can't and won't compromise our morals to accomodate your faith.

Well, I wound up not sending them a picture. I didn't have a recent one handy. The old surgeon's office took one though, so it will probably be sent with my file when I get it transferred.