KartMan

I just had my surgery at the same facility. How wonderful to see your success- and hoping to do as well! :frown:

Good luck in post-op. They put on a support group meeting on the second Monday each month, hope to see you there.

Congrats on the weight loss and body fat!!

I don't think I will ever be too skinny.

Once I get the fat off I am going to concentrate at bulking up my muscle.

That is what I am working on now. In fact, with this last test I gained 4.6 lbs of lean (muscle) mass. I’m not trying to get on the cover of Muscle & Fitness, but I won’t be mad if in a few months I have some guns and pecs to show off. Now that there is not a giant layer of fat in the way, I can actually see some muscle definition. Even in my abs, I’ve got a ways to go to get to a six pack - but right now I can actually see the V forming. It’s so much more motivating when you can actually see the results of all the hard work.

Imagine that? Me too skinny. Well I don’t think I am, but I definitely don’t think I need to lose any more weight. I just went in for another Hydrostatic Dunk Test and found out I only have 9.7% Body Fat. Under 13% is considered Excellent on most Body Fat charts. In case you are unfamiliar with it, Body Fat is your actual Fat relative to total body weight and is measured by weighing your lean mass while submerged in a pool. In my case, my total weight is 170.6 lbs, Fat Mass is 16.5 lbs, and Lean Mass is 154.1 lbs. This measurement should not be confused with BMI. BMI is a very crude measurement that can tell you roughly where your weight is relative to the population, but doesn’t really tell you anything meaningful with regard to your actual fat and lean composition.

The band has done a lot of this for me, and for that I am eternally grateful. Probably of greater importance though is that it has taken me learning how to control my eating (even with the band), working out smartly, and getting the proper amounts of nutrients (especially protein).

I still see a fat guy in the mirror at times, and I am working on that (he’s not really in the mirror, just in my head). But everyone else that sees me sees a thin, healthy and happy guy. I love the new me and could not imagine going back to the place I was before.

Fox is in a whole different league. I only dislike Maddow on style, she is spot on when it comes to substance. Fox is full of lies and misrepresentation, they are morally bankrupt as far as I am concerned. Having said that, I do try to watch them on occasion to see what lies they are currently spewing (barf bag in hand). Right now they are falling all over themselves trying to say that the current severe “weather” on the East Coast debunks the whole theory of “climate” change. Note that I emphasized “weather” and “climate”. They are very different terms and if Fox continues to equate them in their commentary, they only further to prove how ignorant they are.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

I forgot about this post, maybe an update is in order. I am now hovering at around 173lbs, which is a good weight for me. Some people actually think I’m a little too thin, imagine that :biggrin: . I have surpassed my Body Fat Goal, I am now right about 13% which is considered “Athletic” on most charts. I am still working on muscle definition, 3-4 days a week in the gym helps with that. I am wearing size M shirts and size 30 pants. I still can’t believe that, I’ve never worn clothes this size in my whole life. food choices are still pretty easy and restriction is good. I find that I have to watch myself with soup/chili – I love them but I tend to overindulge on them. And Frozen Yogurt :thumbup: I don’t know if you have those self serve places where you live (they are evil), So Cal is full of them and I can way overdo it on that stuff.

I actually like Rachel Maddow and think she is very factual in her reporting. She is the only one who uncovered the "Family" of DC legislators and their connection to Uganda and it's anti-gay legislation, which at one time proposed death to any homosexual.

I should clarify that I LOVE her intelligence, just don’t care for her style. I think the theatrics deter form the message and are likely to turn people off (it does me). But, man is she smart? I think she might be one of the smartest people on TV. Do you know that she is a Rhodes Scholar and has a PHD in PoliSci from Oxford? I like her way better than Keith Olbermann though because she brings both sides of the argument to her show. I don’t know why they agree to come on with her though, she almost always destroys them in open debate on almost any topic.

I agree that the democrats in the senate, especially, are a huge disappointment. Reid is weak. But I blame Baucus for allowing the bill to go beyond August. It should have and could have been passed by then.

This is just one problem. Because Reid is so weak, a DINO like Baucus was allowed to derail Healthcare. Who needs Republicans when we have Democrats to kill our agenda for us?

The democrats need to just shove the agenda along and to hell with what the republicans say. That's what bush and the republicans did. No looking back, no apologies.

Not only “no apologies”, just do it and watch history describe it for what it is, landmark legislation the likes of which we haven’t seen since FDR and LBJ put through. If they would just do the right thing, they may lose popularity in the short term, some may even lose office, but they are there to serve the people not to get reelected (that goes all the way up to the President0.

Just start an unjust war with no way to pay for it. And if you criticize it, you are on the side of the terrorists.

Just pass 2 huge tax cuts for the rich, adding to the deficit. No criticism there, either.

Just pass a huge medicare drug plan with no bargaining for lower drug prices costing nearly a trillion dollars over ten years.

This is what democrats need to do. JUST DO IT is my new motto. JUST DO IT. You're probably going to lose your next election anyway, you might as well go down fighting.

We should start the Nike party for 2012

The american people have apparently decided they like the republicans who block everything and do nothing, so let them have them. We know where that will lead the country.

...............

I can only watch so much of Rachel Maddow before she drives me totally crazy, but she was making some great points last night. Essentially what she is saying is that the Republicans are going to block everything so why even try to be bipartisan? I think the Left should just stop whining about the Right, we know who they are and what they are doing – deal with it. I gotta give the Republicans credit, they working as a team. If the Democrats were as organized, they would have had half of Obama’s agenda passed by now. Last year they had the majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate and they let time and the momentum slip away. Now they have lost the Senate and may be on the verge of losing the House (and possibly the WH).

Would it have helped to have a few Republicans cross the aisle on Healthcare? Yes – but don’t let that be the excuse. The Democrats are to blame for losing Healthcare - period. They let the “death panel” lies go on, allowed the special interests to Water it down, and finally allowed it to wither and die. They had the votes and they fought amongst themselves and have nothing to show for it in the end. They are a perfect example of the adage “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

It’s obvious to me that neither Obama, Pelosi, nor Reid have the strength or backbone to control their own party. They should have taken a page form LBJ or GW Bush and twisted some arms and busted some heads – too late now I’m afraid.

BJean,

I am fine with giving her the benefit of the doubt, and that is probably what she meant. Unfortunately, statements like that – particularly when so poorly thought out contribute to our legitimate arguments getting turned against us. People on the other side will demonize women (and the issue) over a statement like that and set the whole movement back.

Even if she did mean politicians as you say, the statement was bad for the movement in my opinion. There have been plenty of men (I count myself in that group) that have positively contributed to the Pro-choice agenda. No important issue (especially ones like civil rights, gay rights, and women’s rights) can be championed only by those in the oppressed group, they all need the help of outsiders.

I consider men's opinions on the topic to be totally irrelevant. If all my children were gay I wouldn't even blink, but if they were anti-choice I might have to kill them!

Woah, watch it there LapNYC. Totally irrelevant?

You would be hard pressed to find a more Pro-choice male than me. Look back at my previous posts and I think you’ll see where I stand on this issue. But with all due respect, that was a stupid comment for you to make. If what you are saying is that men (especially politicians and the general public) should not have a say on what a women does with her body, I can totally agree with you. However, to say it like you do only serves to alienate men, and that is not something the Pro-choice side should be doing. I believe there are certainly cases in which men DO deserve some say. For example, in a committed monogamous relationship, or in a marriage. I would agree that in the end, a women has the right to choose, I believe after all that it is her body – but in true relationships, a (potential) father should have some rights. I’m not saying I know how to legislate those rights, nor do I believe the fathers rights outweigh the mothers rights, but to say their opinions are totally irrelevant is ludicrous and shortsighted and does a disservice to the Pro-choice cause.

Supposing that you were not talking about potential individual fathers in your statement, I think you are still wrong to say what you said. This important topic obviously is more relevant to women than men. Men have no idea what it means to be pregnant, but to totally discount men’s opinions on the issue would be a huge mistake. That would be like saying that white people have no valid opinions on civil rights or that straight people shouldn’t contribute to issues around gay rights. I myself am a white, heterosexual male and am vehemently supportive of civil rights, am pro gay rights and decidedly Pro-choice – but by your logic, my voice shouldn’t matter in any of those discussions:confused:

I would suggest you rephrase your comment.

Back to the discussion about translating the Bible, eh?

All men are sinners. How can sinners set themselves up to the judge of whether a person should be put to death?

We are all aware that there have been many times in our history where we killed someone with the death penalty and learned later that they had been falsely accused. How can that ever be forgiven or condoned? I don't think it can be condoned by God. I think that those who sentence a person to death and carry out that sentence will be be judged by God and will have much to answer for.

Well said.

If we ever get it wrong (and statistically, we get it wrong far more than people realize), we have no business killing people. At least if we wrongly imprison someone we can compensate them when we figure out they are innocent, if we kill them they are dead forever.

That would only make sense...taking a life is never ok after all...

By that line of thinking, it is no more ok for the State to take a life than for an individual to take it. Which is my perspective, BTW. That is not my main opposition to death penalty though. Mainly I oppose it because the State gets it wrong too often and should not be trusted with the responsibility of killing its citizens.

And then there are those (like me) who don't care what the bible says with regard to how our government should govern. That is the real issue here and if you were to poll the american public, by a large majority, they do not want one particular biblical interpretation to be the basis for our country's laws.

Exactly!!!!!

How many times have I said this on this forum? This is exactly what we mean when we say the United States is a Secular Democracy.

Obama, should take a page from the Bush playbook and pass meaningful reform – screw the Republicans, the Blue Dogs, and anybody else that gets in the way. As Jon Stewart says:

“Democrats will only then have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the f**k he wanted to do."

He should also can half of his staff. Get rid of the War Hawks (Gates, Clinton, Emanuel, etc.) that are keeping us in these stupid wars, the Wall Street lovers (Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, etc.) that are in bed the banks, and anybody that is holding us back on social issues.

I don’t care if Obama has a second term or not. I voted for him because I wanted change, a REAL progressive in the White House. Instead, we got another Establishment Democrat doing what Establishment Democrats do (which from my perspective is not much more than Republicans do).

I’m so angry:cursing::biggrin::cursing:

Grrrrr

Anybody watch the campaign in Mass? Was it a fair race? Did both sides get a little dirty or did one or the other side get really dirty? Did the Republicans do what they usually do, which is come up with some outrageous lie, broadcast it in ads and phone calls to such an extent that people believe it? Or did the Republican candidate win it on the issues? Or did the Democratic candidate lose it because she was really that bad?

I haven't been tracking it. Just wondering if any of you did.

No more or less dirty than any other campaign as far as I can see. Bottom line from my perspective is that Dems (Obama, the Party and the Candidate) took the seat for granted. The national party didn’t bring out the big guns, Obama didn’t campaign for her, and the candidate had some major blunders (including taking a vacation in December). They thought since Obama won the state by over 20% and that it is a liberal state they had it in the bag. Come on dems, it’s not a freaking game, you can never a take a seat for granted.

We gave this one away.

Say goodbye to healthcare, climate change, women’s rights, gay rights, and every other progressive issue. The Democratic Party deserves exactly what they got in this, unfortunately we all will suffer for it.

I’m so mad I could spit nails:cursing::biggrin:. Oh, and Patty – don’t get too excited. I don’t think Republicans won as much as Democrats lost if you get my meaning.

bush was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I have to disagree with you. I think he was a wolf in a jackasses clothing.

I generally do not argue with people who feel like they have biblical authority because it is all based on what makes them feel good to believe. It makes most people feel safer if they maintain a fundamental view and expression of their religious beliefs. I am Christian but definately do not hold fundamentalist views. I believe the Bible is not to be interpreted or applied literally. If we did interpret it literally accross the board this would be one savage society. That is what the Taliban is doing with Islam. Lord help us all if the ultra right wingers get anymore power. Have you folks seen a movie or read the book called "The Handmaiden's Tale? This "tale" shows us what it would belike if we were indeed a theocracy. Lets hope we remain a secular democracy.

Corliss

Well Said!

Whether they are 'scientifically' proven to be true or not is irrelevent. I don't need science to authenticate what I believe. I have the bible.

Wow… How can I argue with that? Why even try?

Seems to me that Blind Faith leads to perilous consequences, but that is just my opinion. I choose to base my knowledge on demonstrative facts that can be replicated, vetted, and cross checked. In fact, I look forward to the times when science and conventional wisdom are proved wrong, it further validates the process. How often does religion admit that it is wrong? Or God forbid (pun intended), admit that the Bible is wrong?

It's been a while since I've posted here, so have a look. First one is about 6 months pre-op @ about 285lbs. Second batch is just last month, @ about 173lbs and happily maintaining.

Bull!!!

You actually exist and nobody is claiming that your mother was a virgin when she gave birth to you. :thumbup:

I’m happy to concede that Jesus existed, I never argue that point. I don’t think there is enough evidence to prove he didn’t exist. I think he was simply a prophet though. I do believe he was deeply religious. Even if half the things attributed to him are true – it seems as if he was genuinely a good man. I also think if he were alive today, he would be saddened by what people say and do in his name. I certainly do not believe though that he is the Son of God (or that “God” exists for that matter) or that he was conceived from a virgin birth.

I think you owe me an apology on the line “

I think on issues, you do not “.

I did not say that you don't think. Read it again. I said that "I have a foundation and a basis for the way I think on issues, you do not."

This means that I don't use my own judgement to come up with my sense of what's right and wrong. I have a 'foundation' and a 'basis' for my views, and it is Jesus and what he says about the issues. You do not have a basis for what is right and wrong. It is only what you deem so. This is my reasoning for saying that you are your own God.

IMHO, you do not have a foundation at all. Your beliefs are based on mythology, mysticism and faith. None of which are foundational at all. A foundation (again, this is my opinion) would be one that is based on observed facts, evidence, proven hypothesis, etc. It’s called the scientific method, you should Google it sometime.

I wonder is those 85% that you so generously quote would agree with one of their fellow conservatives who sure speaks for many of them:

WASHINGTON — The White House is firing back at Rush Limbaugh after the conservative talk radio host urged people not to donate to relief efforts in Haiti.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs says there are always people who say "really stupid things" during a crisis. He says it's sad that Limbaugh would use the power of his pulpit to convince people not to assist those in need.

Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday that he wouldn't trust that money donated to Haiti through the White House Web site would actually go to the relief efforts. He said Americans don't need to contribute to earthquake relief because they already donate to Haiti through their income taxes.

If 85% of those who live in this country get their political views from their religious views (as you claim) and if limbaugh has 20 million listeners and they aren't liberals, then it stand to reason that they are these conservative christians. If he is their spokesperson (what else can he be called?) then it speaks volumes for the real moral compass of that religion.

What Patty fails to realize is that even if that 85% statistic is right (which I really doubt), they are not monolithic. They certainly don’t have the same narrow minded view of politics and religion that she does. I know several Christians that support Gay Marriage and several that believe in a woman’s right to choose. The point is, Patty can’t “claim” that 85% because it really doesn’t mean anything.

What are you smoking Patty? The U.S. absolutely IS a secular Democracy. You don’t seem to understand what the term means, even though I have described it to you and pointed out references to you on numerous occasions. I have no problem with people in office having a belief in God or following a particular religious view. I also don’t have a problem with the electorate voting certain ways based on their faith (or lack thereof as the case may be). The problem is when someone such as yourself tries to say we should make laws specifically because of a particular religious tenant, it just doesn’t work and is unconstitutional.

Abortion is a great example for this. I have asked you several times to give me a non-religious reason to ban abortion, you can’t because there really is no non-religious reason. Now I would agree that reasonable people can have differences of opinion on when and where an abortion is appropriate, but an outright ban – that’s silly and based solely on religious dogma.

I think you owe me an apology on the line “I think on issues, you do not “. How is it that a person (myself) that considers a variety of sources, well traveled, is very well read, and is open minded on many issues can be accused of not thinking while another person (you) who basis all of their opinions on arcane writings from a single source is a thinker? I don’t get that one.

I never claimed to be a God. I am the same thing Jesus was, just a man –nothing more, nothing less.

One big difference between abortion killing and capital punishment killing is that one is innocent killing and the other is guilty, deserving killing.

Except when we get it totally wrong, which have done far too many times.

The death penalty is absurd and so is trying to legislate a woman’s right to chose on purely religious grounds. Give me a non religious argument against abortion (or gay marriage for that matter) and I’ll debate it, otherwise you have no grounds to discuss the issue in a secular democracy.

There are no easy answers but President Obama has the intelligence, ability and guts to do so and has said that if he is only a one term president because of it, then so be it.

I know he has the indigence and certainly the ability, but I’m not sure he has the political guts to follow thru. I voted for him for THIS term, not the next term. I EXPECT him to follow though on “YES WE CAN” so that we can say “YES WE DID” even if that means only one term for him. He already caved on Afghanistan and is bending on Health Care. He need to do at least these things right:

- End the wars

- Pass healthcare

- Repair the economy

- Fix the financial system

- End Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

- Repeal DOMA

- Make a real effort on climate change

- etc.

I’ll give you that it does take 2 people to “create” a child (although one can argue that with sperm and egg donors the people don’t even need to be together). I think your emphasis on “the best way” is naïve and shortsighted. We don’t live in a perfect cookie cutter world. Even if we did, there are tons of references of people that have done wonderfully in life with one parent, with gay parents, even no parents. Just as there are plenty of people that have failed society with a mom and dad in the home.

I would argue that the most important thing is that a child be reared in a safe, intellectually stimulating, nurturing, and loving environment. I see no conflict with that in a gay household.