keithf

Ah, but what a wonderful change in problems to have, eh? :smile2: Good luck w/ the doc!

So treat this case *as* an addiction case. As a society, we all step in right away if we discover that a parent has been supplying their adolescent with alcohol, nicotene, or narcotics. And rightfully so. We also step in (moreso now than in the past) when we discover parents not seeking appropriate medical interventions for childhood illnesses. It's an addiction. I'm happy to say that. Let's treat it as such, then, in the same vein as supplying drugs, alcohol and sex to minors who cannot be expected to have the same levels of self control and maturity we expect adults to exercise.

Reflection on the past can reveal a few truths. Consider, perhaps, that these people are seeing precisely what things contributed to their own problems. For myself, I know what weight I was in high school. I know how I spent my time, and I know what I ate. I know what could have been improved, but I also know full well that it would have been worse had a good half-dozen of my relations not been trying. Were the boy only 200#, I'd be more understanding. Had the mother not taken the boy and fled, I'd be more understanding. Had the mother's response been something other than "Sorry, I was too busy to focus on the health of one I'm entrusted with", I would -- again -- be more understanding. But none of these are the case. He is 555# with only 14 years. She fled when people finally decided she had ignored an untenable situation. She claimed that she was too busy to take care of him. The mother has more than enough to answer for. If she is in fact too busy, then obviously someone else has to be appointed his guardian. If she is unwilling or unable to manage her child's health, then someone willing and able to do so must. If she did, honestly, try without fail, actively and in good faith, then perhaps she merely needs assistance. But I'm sick and tired of people claiming that an on-its-face toxic situation -- his mother's alleged care -- is in fact in the best interests of the child. We see what her care has led to. I'd rather see that child grow up to be a healthy patient of a psychiatrist, working through his resentment at being uprooted, than see that child as an early victim of heart disease. Yes, he may indeed have a significant addiction to food, but who has the responsibility to see him get the help he needs? Who has, seemingly willfully, failed to follow through on that responsibility? With luck, he'll live long enough to hate social workers.

How many 14yo kids are going around saying, "Hey, buddy, can I bum a burger?". There's a big difference between food and smokes at that age when it comes to getting it from friends. I can just see the reaction now: "My god! You look like you're starving! Doesn't your mother feed you?" .. Somehow, given his weight and the attitude of many, I think the "why are you asking me for food?" question is more likely to result, and a request for smokes and drugs more likely to be honored. I'll grant the embezzlement line -- to a point. In which case the mother also needs to be given a refresher in fiscal awareness. Leaking money is not a good thing, even in better economies than the present. Part of being a parent means cracking the whip when you have to. This kid's 14: if he's been stealing from her, she has to smack him hard -- if she doesn't, she has to bear blame (in lieu of culpability) for not rearing her child to respect the property of others. If he's simply been eating whatever she's put in front of him, she needs to be smacked for abusing another living creature, even if he has an underlying disorder. After all, who's at fault for serving someone who's obviously got a drinking problem? As a parent, she should -- is required to -- know better, and her behavior as described in the article smacks of willful disregard rather than trying to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, it looks like Buell has discontinued the Blast. That was an excellent commuter, and would handle an impromptu road trip between SF and Reno as well.

Ron Jeremy?!? You *do* realize that doesn't actually narrow things down much, of course. Aside from the fact that pretty much everyone could be a porn star (there are studios for pretty much anything and anyone), few porn stars have anything resembling .. technique. :crying:

Don't let plateaus get to you. I know they got to me when I was dietting (and contributed greatly to falling off the diet). As long as you're losing as a steady pace, even if there are bumps up and down for a few days, you're doing the right thing. Now if you want to increase the rate -- that's for you and your surgeon to discuss.

If it's the scar itself, and there's no redness or other signs of an infection, I wouldn't worry -- I've got the same, myself. Scar tissue tends to tighten a bit. You can (carefully, once it's closed and all) massage it, particularly with some silicone/dimethicone-based cream (eg, ScarZone) to help relieve the appearance.

I don't recall whether he specified, but I *think* it was a combination of both in-op and post-op events. In any event, compared to the mortality rates from obesity, I would argue that surgery is the *safest* of the two options for the people who aren't able to manage their weight independently. Yes, it's possible to die on the operating table, but if your health was such that you were already dying -- or living as if you were -- what's the additional risk when the result could be a greatly improved lifespan and the ability to enjoy it? The mortality rates are going to vary by both surgeon and patient, anyway, so seek out the surgeons at the top of the curve, and do what you can to make their work easier and more efficient (like being aggressive during pre-op). It can only improve the odds of a successful outcome.

I'm only a week further along than you, and seeing the exact same thing. I see my surgeon on the 29th, and we'll determine then whether I need a fill.

Pre-op, my steady rate (ie, discounting spikes) was about 3#/wk. Post-op, it's around 3-4#/wk. Since April, I've lost 66#, 26# of that since my surgery on 30 Jun. I'm 5'10, started at ~345# (BMI 50), and was eating around 1700cal/day for 2mo pre-op, and doing 45min walks nightly. Post-op, I'm doing about 500cal/day, with 45-75min walks about every other day (I need to increase that, but the weather's just been too damn hot and humid, and I've been having to tube-feed a sick cat). No fills yet, though I will PB if I go beyond about 4-5oz of solids.

MyDailyPlate/Livestrong.com advertises that they have an iPhone app as well as a Blackberry app. I know nothing about those apps beyond that, but I am using the website to diary the food.

One would think that a concerned and engaged parent should at a minimum be able to recognize something isn't right and seek help to deal with the problem. Education is all fine and good, but saying you're "too busy" is BS only demonstrates the level of neglect. He's 14. In most places I know that pretty much means he's unemployed and entire dependent on at least one adult for support, even if that support comes ultimately from the state. She -- practically guaranteed -- controls what money ends up in his wallet for food. She -- again, practically guaranteed -- controls what food goes into the pantry. If her son is sneaking food from the pantry, there are locks available. If she's too busy to cook consistently, she also is in the ultimate position for placing orders at restaurants. Did she even exercise the lowest level of parental control about his eating behaviors? When ordered to hand the child to a foster home, she skipped. Under any circumstance, that alone is worth jail time (as her $50k bail shows). And, of course, where was everybody else? I'm sure she felt she was trying to keep things under control, but so does a drowning man -- do you wait for him to speak clearly and coherently before diving in to assist? There's some accountability there to be scrutinzed. To be honest, I *want* that Pandora's box openned. Parental rights are cute and all, but a lot of "parents" seem to view their children as hobbies they can dabble in, or simply a potential side effect of a night in the back seat of the Oldsmobile.

Currently eating around 500 cal/day, and losing about 3#/wk, with 30-80 minutes of walking about every other day.

Agreed. I haven't had a fill yet, and I still end up PBing after about 5oz of food.

My surgeon quoted us his statistics: Out of 1000+ RNY, he's lost 4 patients. Out of 100+ lap bands, he's lost none. Long term complications: in the long term, he's seen roughly equivalent rates. Surgery *should* scare the bejeezus out of you. If you're scared, it just means you're sane. But considering the complications and fatality rates of avoiding it, an obese patient is more likely to enjoy a longer, healthier life with surgery than without. If diabetes is involved, I wouldn't consider the band: there's a significantly greater chance of reverting diabetes with the bypass surgeries. I don't have diabetes and would rather leave my anatomy otherwise intact and open to future revision should an appropriate technology arise. For those reasons, I chose the band.

Indeed.. but the easy way in just about anything is often the way that produces the least results.

I'm doing perfectly fine with about 400-600 calories, with enough energy to walk 3 miles without being wiped. Keep in mind that as long as your nutrition including Protein is kept up, your calories should come from your stored body fat. Follow your surgeon's recommendations, but don't worry about "to little" calories -- only too little nutrients. Conversely, don't feel the need to boost your food intake if your nutritional requirements are already met.

Same here.. My gas pains only subsided in the past week.

There are also low-calorie protein water drinks.. Special K's K2O comes to mind, and there are others. That'll help supplement your protein without loading up on liquid calories, and you'll be getting in water like you should.

That.. sounds.. really.. good. :frown:~~~ Can't wait until I get back on solids. I'm getting plenty of different flavors, but I want texture back in my life.

And I still haven't had my first fill yet -- I can toss Water back like crazy. Purees, too. They start getting thick and I'll top off at 4-5oz. But two petites, and I can't hold water down for a while.

Today, perhaps. People are a little more wuss about survival skills than they used to be, but I know the reason I don't eat much fish has more to do with annoyance at fish oil and bones than in any trauma I sufferred while gutting them. Can't say as I've killed anything large with legs, though the carcass probably wouldn't affect me. One guy I know -- very vegetarian -- try to put his dog on a vegetarian diet (he'd never had a dog before). Poor thing was getting sick all over before we convinced him that those canines were there for a reason.

I've PBd twice on those in the past 2 days. My surgeon told me to try them whole when I felt up to it -- obviously, my stomach disagrees on the matter. Hence the question :confused:

I could recite what everyone *I* knew ate as kids on welfare, and say instead that you are absolutely wrong. The fact remains that the cheapest foods are by and large also the least nutritious. My food budget about 10 years ago was about one or two bucks a week, and I was working at the time. With that, I could buy.. - 2 large apples and have a two Snacks (or 2 meals, now). - or two dozen packages of raman (as low as 10 cents each) and eat for a week. The cheapest I can find chicken at the store is currently about 90c/lb. While chicken and apples would be great, it wouldn't last long enough. Also, I had no kitchen and no refridgeration. Shelf stability was a requirement. Cashews, currently, are around $7.50/lb locally, and even peanuts are a couple bucks per pound. It strikes me that, growing up, that was probably not far removed from what my family's per-capita food budget was. Of course there will be exceptions. That is why I said "generally". My mother was known for her apple pie as well. But she only made it maybe once or twice a year. There are many things many people consider good for me that I consider gross. Beans.. brussel sprouts.. oysters.. tofu.. oatmeal.. cooked cabbage.. Cool on scoring the books and mags. I've got a couple books from somewhere 1895-1905ish (I'd have to re-check, the one in particular I could name is Tale of Two Cities), and I used to have a geometry book from not much later. I any case, I wouldn't expect a magazine to provide examples of typical cuisine. I wouldn't even consider most recipe books to do so, either. Most of them have historically been geared toward social occasions, not anthropology. Even old recipe boxes are going to contain items more likely to be occasional dishes: all the common ones would be memorized, and simpler. The fact that what you mention is pretty dessert-heavy makes me believe this is true with them as well. There are exceptions, of course -- I have a cookbook put together by the local Sons of Norway. It could be retitled "1001 ways to cook with cream of mushroom soup". I'm sure Laura's access to sugar and chocolate -- both imports -- increased greatly after she moved to the large city, but I doubt Caroline was able to provide her with regular desserts in the years before that. Rose, maybe.. but she was working in San Francisco IIRC. The invention of the car also would have increased access. Anyway, you should post some of the recipes. I have friends who I'm sure would love to play with them. Anything for stewed bison.. maybe with some rosemary? I'd settle for lamb if LHJ contributors were too east coast for it. This reminds me: I still have some wild boar in my freezer I need to eat (Thanksgiving). ... But back to something resembling the original thread -- has anybody found any Calcium citrate pills that *can* be swallowed whole without PBing? I can take my ursodiol no problem, but the only chewable calcium I've been able to find as been calcium carbonate, which I'm warned against by virtue of the decreased uptake it provides.