[QUOTE=canuck416;1191965]Thanks for the info PB. Those are some impressive weight loss numbers, it will be interesting to see how the week goes. Will you be training at all during the milk fast?[/QUOTE]I'm just doing my normal stuff which is walking a lot, sprints once a week and trying to remember to to an LHT workout twice a week. I bought a pull up bar but I'm still a long way from an unassisted pull up. I have lots of energy and don't feel at all "depleted".
In fact I don' t really think we should be calling this thing a "fast" at all. Richard refers to it as the milk intervention. Meant to be kind of a dietary reset.
It might be interesting to cycle steakaneggz with some milk days.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1191845]My only last comment on the whole boob issue is that Mr. Perfidy is certifiable. Nuff said.[/QUOTE]
I just saw that thread. Gordon Bennet! Her body, her - perfectly rational - choice.
[QUOTE=badgergirl;1191983]I just saw that thread. Gordon Bennet! Her body, her - perfectly rational - choice.[/QUOTE]Yep, the operative word being "HER". I just don't see why people bother arguing with him. It's like having an argument with the homeless guy in the park who is yelling at imaginary enemies. Pretty pointless.
Well, here it is 9pm and I still haven't gotten around to my third pint of milk.
I plugged all the numbers for the day into Sparkpeople and came up with 1036 calories for the day (that is 2 pints milk, 1 pint kefir, 1 pint kombucha, about 3oz pomegranate juice in the kefir, and 1.5 tbsp of butter) with a f/p/c of 43.6/18.5/37.9
I think I could get better macros by going with goat milk and skipping the kombucha (although I am enjoying the excuse to drink it again for science of course.)
It shocks/saddens me that men seem so attached to the idea that women should not have such domain over their own bodies. It is men that seem the most bothered by her decisions. =/ [/QUOTE]
I would say that this is not the case for my husband. He certainly believes that women should have this domain. What he's concerned about is women going through *potentially unnecessary and potentially harmful* surgeries and the removal of parts of their bodies.
And then, in his mind, he started to think about it in terms of people -- just removing body parts because of a potential risk of disease, rather than doing what one can do to prevent, including just getting good, preventative care.
I think that, for us, as "natural preferring" people, we are looking at keeping our bodies as whole as possible for as long as possible. So, we advocate that, too. along with medical choice!
hmm. interesting abt milk!
Sorry to bring it back to breasts, but I spoke to husband. Said: dude, if it was me (and it might be, next time we're in NHS land I should probably get that stuff checked out, given that I do not know my family history) I would totally get it all lopped off and no reconstruct. I made slashing motions and gestured to what would be really cool flat-chested scars and he was...stunned and horrified. And I said, wait, fake tits are better than no tits? Apparently, yes. Who knew? I would have stuffed chicken fillets in a bra and called it good, but no - chicken fillets have to be under the skin. I still like the scar idea better...
my husband says he would prefer health first, prevention second, and if necessary, then mastectomy and leave it be. No fake breasts. that upsets him -- even when using your own tissue and stuff.
he's completely freaked out about the organs that his family have had killed, partially killed or removed. it's like they are killing/removing happy. His dad and sister had part of their hearts killed, when the origin of the problem was/is anxiety. His sister had her thyroid irradiated, even though there were several other treatment options for her graves disease. His mother had a hysterectomy for apparently no reason. She had half of her thyroid removed as treatment for hyperthyroid. They all had their tonsils removed when he was 12 because the doctors said it would prevent any tonsil problems in the future (they'd never had any in the past!).
Honestly, it's a bit freaky to him all around. Largely because 1. they don't look at causes or alternatives (even if they rule them out eventually, one should at least look in order to have real *choice* in the matter; and 2. in the situation of the uterus, it was quite literally "you're of the age now where this should come out." seriously weird, old-school medical garbage that one.
Apparently, he comes from a long line of "kill/remove organs" as medical/non-medical whatever you just do it because the doctor told you to.
OK, since everyone wants to talk about boobs..............
Preferring all natural health to prevent problems is great, but the BRCA gene is not about just any old breast cancer. Having it is an 87% chance of a highly aggressive very fast moving cancer. Thus, if one were trying for healthy prevention and it didn't happen to work, one could be dead very quickly and/or have to have a much more radical mastectomy if the cancer spread to the lymph nodes, etc.
(I say this as someone missing several of my lymph nodes on one side and who is still unable to do a one armed plank on that side due to muscle/tissue damage in the area.)
Having the preventative mastectomy would make the operation much less invasive and provide an easier/faster recovery since one is healthy at the time and has all one's resources to devote to healing.
Nobody would make such a decision lightly and I certainly hope nobody would ever be "pressured into it". If someone makes that decision, however, I think that should be respected. Not second guessed and analyzed by everyone from the tabloid press to..........US here.
About reconstruction. I had mine for me, not for any guy. Since mine was only one side, I wanted symmetry. The tissue transplant was the best option for me at the time. Had it been bi-lateral, I would have gone with the bags because there would have been a lot less scarring involved. (I have a scar from hipbone to hipbone as well as those on my chest.) I also had a nip and tuck on the other side in order to make them match since I didn't have enough "extra" on my tummy to make the transplant big enough.
So, someone choosing to have the operation while healthy and well able to recover, having the reconstruction while there is still room for the bags (avoiding that stretched too tight problem) makes lots of sense to me. That would be a walk in the park compared to the series of eight operations I had while being sick with a non-existant immune system.
It makes a lot of sense, but I think much of it comes down to medical ethics. Sadly, there are people out there who will blindly follow celebrities. "Oh, I don't have the gene? Well, Angelina did it so sign me up anyway!" It comes down to doctors saying, "Hell no." It's when it becomes a money maker for those involved that things swing from useful to insane. I can see a budding industry of cancer prevention becomes cosmetic surgery cash cow.
Meanwhile on the milk front (has anyone noticed the irony that we are talking about boobs and milk?)
I lost another pound. That's 8lbs in 3 days