Guest guest Posted October 25, 2006 Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 I agree with this too..I didnt get to see the Oprah show til yesterday. Afn shows it a day later then what is seen in the states. I didn't get to see it all because the presidential address came on before Carnie took the stage. I agree let work up the gym addition. I deal with stress by working out...classes, treadmill, weights I guess are my drug of choice these days.. Marilynn > > > Amen Mike! > > Let's see if I can chat up my gym addiction: > > I warm up with curling 15lb dumb bells 15 times. > I then hook them up over my head 15 times > I then lift them on my sides 15 times. > I then lift my arms out and up with them about 5 times (try this it's > hard). > I then do 15 leg curls and 15 leg crunches at 112.5lbs > I then sit and pull down 137.5lbs 15 times > I then bench press 100lbs 15 times > I then work my deltoids by expanding out 80lbs 15 times > I then work my pectorals by compressing in 120lbs 15 times > > That's about it for weight lifting. > > I then hop on the elliptical machine, set the resistance to level 5 > (I've been told it goes up to 20 by a friend, yeah what'd he do try > that level?). I then set my weight and age into it. I then set it to > a gluteus workout. That's where the incline is 6, then 8, then 10, > then 12, then 14, then starts over again. It does this three times > throughout the workout. I do this for 25 minutes. I try to maintain > 150 strides per minute. Lately I've been doing about 165 strides per > minute. I'm going to need to kick the resistance up to 7 next week. > > I then get on the treadmill. I set the weight and age. I set the > incline to 3% and choose the program aerobic one where it does three > hills of 3%, then 4%, then 5%, then 6% and back down. I set the speed > to 3.8mph and go for 20 minutes. Next week I'm going to kick this up > to 4mph. > > I try to increase and build on some part of this every couple of > weeks. I can't really increase the time anymore because I don't get > enough sleep if I'm doing more than an hour in the gym. I do this > almost every weekday. I might start doing it Saturday too in the > winter. > > It's not really helping me lose much weight I don't think but I'm > sure getting toned. I think I might have lost 10lbs in the last month > or so. I guess that is something though. > > Keep hitting the gym and add something every few weeks. You'll be > amazed where you are in a few months! > > Mike in GR > > > > >> > > >> Wow, I guess I'm in for some big trouble according to Oprah. > She's > > > on > > >> TV now saying that " Thousands " of people who had this surgery are > > > now > > >> alcoholic's, drug abusers, sleeping around on thier spouses etc. > > >> Apparently I only traded one addiction for another. I don't see > > > that > > >> happening. Well Oprah, I had the surgery on 5 Sep this year and > I'm > > >> doing great. Guess I'll just do the best I can for those people > > > having > > >> problems and pray for them. Wish you all the best as always, this > > > is a > > >> great site. Take care everyone! > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Ok its analogy time . Smoking is an addiction. So can be drinking in this example too but let's just stick to smoking. Let's say you only smoke when you go to the bar and drink/party. Otherwise you NEVER smoke. Maybe you can convince yourself you're not addicted or that it's not dangerous or that your second hand smoke doesn't KILL non-smokers like me. Whatever. Let's say you decide for whatever reason you want to quit smoking entirely. To do this you figure that you won't go to the bar anymore. The bar causes you to want to smoke so cut out the bar and wham bam no smoking. Let's say this works too except that now when you go out to dinner instead of the bar you want to drink more or, even better, EAT more. You start to gain weight or have alcohol addiction issues. You've substituted one addiction for another and yet you've cut out the source of the first addiction. To say that not going to the bar is causing you to shift from smoking to eating or drinking more is so illogical I can't accurately relate how silly the assertion is. It is just as false to claim that WLS has anything to do with other addictions. It is the ADDICTIONS and stopping them that leads to other addictions not the methods employed to stop the initial addictions that causes/leads to other addictions. I realize that maybe this is seen as splitting hairs. I mean surely the wls or the bar contributes to the initial addiction so that simply HAS to float down to any subsequent addictions right? I mean if the person in my example hadn't quit going to the bar or someone doesn't have wls then the new addictions wouldn't have come about because the person would never have stopped smoking (or eating/gaining weight) right? That is simply not correct. It is possible (albeit improbable) that a person addicted to smoking at the bar or eating/lethargy could change without stopping going to the bar or having wls, that alternative change would essential free them or at least control their initial addiction and THAT would then cause them to assume other addictions. Logical statements can be written in many ways as well and these other forms have identifying names: They are the biconditional, the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Consider the following conditional statement: " If I try then I will succeed. " That is basically what people are claiming, " If I have wls surgery then I will transfer to other addictions. " The biconditional form for this given conditional statement would be: " I will succeed if and only if I try " . Consider, " I will transfer to other addictions if and only if I have wls. " Obviously this is false and illogical. The converse would be " If I succeed I try " . Again, " If I transfer addictions I have had wls surgery " That's not necessarily true because I'm sure you'd agree it doesn't take wls to transfer addictions in many people. The inverse would be: " If I do not try then I do not succeed " . Here we would have, " If I do not have wls then I will not transfer to other addictions. " This is completely inaccurate of course because you may find another way to control your initial addiction. Finally, the contrapositive would be: " If I do not succeed then I do not try. " or " If I do not transfer addictions then I did not have wls. " Of course this makes no sense whatsoever because people might not transfer addictions for a number of reasons. It's simply not possible for a conditional statement to be true while all the others are false. It's not logical. Mike in GR (sorry for the book again) > > I completely understand about the transfer addictions. I do have > addictive tendencies and overeating was part of the cause of my > weight gain. > I can personally see the relationship with WLS and other addictions. > I didn't watch Oprah. > > ~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Ok its analogy time . Smoking is an addiction. So can be drinking in this example too but let's just stick to smoking. Let's say you only smoke when you go to the bar and drink/party. Otherwise you NEVER smoke. Maybe you can convince yourself you're not addicted or that it's not dangerous or that your second hand smoke doesn't KILL non-smokers like me. Whatever. Let's say you decide for whatever reason you want to quit smoking entirely. To do this you figure that you won't go to the bar anymore. The bar causes you to want to smoke so cut out the bar and wham bam no smoking. Let's say this works too except that now when you go out to dinner instead of the bar you want to drink more or, even better, EAT more. You start to gain weight or have alcohol addiction issues. You've substituted one addiction for another and yet you've cut out the source of the first addiction. To say that not going to the bar is causing you to shift from smoking to eating or drinking more is so illogical I can't accurately relate how silly the assertion is. It is just as false to claim that WLS has anything to do with other addictions. It is the ADDICTIONS and stopping them that leads to other addictions not the methods employed to stop the initial addictions that causes/leads to other addictions. I realize that maybe this is seen as splitting hairs. I mean surely the wls or the bar contributes to the initial addiction so that simply HAS to float down to any subsequent addictions right? I mean if the person in my example hadn't quit going to the bar or someone doesn't have wls then the new addictions wouldn't have come about because the person would never have stopped smoking (or eating/gaining weight) right? That is simply not correct. It is possible (albeit improbable) that a person addicted to smoking at the bar or eating/lethargy could change without stopping going to the bar or having wls, that alternative change would essential free them or at least control their initial addiction and THAT would then cause them to assume other addictions. Logical statements can be written in many ways as well and these other forms have identifying names: They are the biconditional, the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Consider the following conditional statement: " If I try then I will succeed. " That is basically what people are claiming, " If I have wls surgery then I will transfer to other addictions. " The biconditional form for this given conditional statement would be: " I will succeed if and only if I try " . Consider, " I will transfer to other addictions if and only if I have wls. " Obviously this is false and illogical. The converse would be " If I succeed I try " . Again, " If I transfer addictions I have had wls surgery " That's not necessarily true because I'm sure you'd agree it doesn't take wls to transfer addictions in many people. The inverse would be: " If I do not try then I do not succeed " . Here we would have, " If I do not have wls then I will not transfer to other addictions. " This is completely inaccurate of course because you may find another way to control your initial addiction. Finally, the contrapositive would be: " If I do not succeed then I do not try. " or " If I do not transfer addictions then I did not have wls. " Of course this makes no sense whatsoever because people might not transfer addictions for a number of reasons. It's simply not possible for a conditional statement to be true while all the others are false. It's not logical. Mike in GR (sorry for the book again) > > I completely understand about the transfer addictions. I do have > addictive tendencies and overeating was part of the cause of my > weight gain. > I can personally see the relationship with WLS and other addictions. > I didn't watch Oprah. > > ~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Ok its analogy time . Smoking is an addiction. So can be drinking in this example too but let's just stick to smoking. Let's say you only smoke when you go to the bar and drink/party. Otherwise you NEVER smoke. Maybe you can convince yourself you're not addicted or that it's not dangerous or that your second hand smoke doesn't KILL non-smokers like me. Whatever. Let's say you decide for whatever reason you want to quit smoking entirely. To do this you figure that you won't go to the bar anymore. The bar causes you to want to smoke so cut out the bar and wham bam no smoking. Let's say this works too except that now when you go out to dinner instead of the bar you want to drink more or, even better, EAT more. You start to gain weight or have alcohol addiction issues. You've substituted one addiction for another and yet you've cut out the source of the first addiction. To say that not going to the bar is causing you to shift from smoking to eating or drinking more is so illogical I can't accurately relate how silly the assertion is. It is just as false to claim that WLS has anything to do with other addictions. It is the ADDICTIONS and stopping them that leads to other addictions not the methods employed to stop the initial addictions that causes/leads to other addictions. I realize that maybe this is seen as splitting hairs. I mean surely the wls or the bar contributes to the initial addiction so that simply HAS to float down to any subsequent addictions right? I mean if the person in my example hadn't quit going to the bar or someone doesn't have wls then the new addictions wouldn't have come about because the person would never have stopped smoking (or eating/gaining weight) right? That is simply not correct. It is possible (albeit improbable) that a person addicted to smoking at the bar or eating/lethargy could change without stopping going to the bar or having wls, that alternative change would essential free them or at least control their initial addiction and THAT would then cause them to assume other addictions. Logical statements can be written in many ways as well and these other forms have identifying names: They are the biconditional, the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Consider the following conditional statement: " If I try then I will succeed. " That is basically what people are claiming, " If I have wls surgery then I will transfer to other addictions. " The biconditional form for this given conditional statement would be: " I will succeed if and only if I try " . Consider, " I will transfer to other addictions if and only if I have wls. " Obviously this is false and illogical. The converse would be " If I succeed I try " . Again, " If I transfer addictions I have had wls surgery " That's not necessarily true because I'm sure you'd agree it doesn't take wls to transfer addictions in many people. The inverse would be: " If I do not try then I do not succeed " . Here we would have, " If I do not have wls then I will not transfer to other addictions. " This is completely inaccurate of course because you may find another way to control your initial addiction. Finally, the contrapositive would be: " If I do not succeed then I do not try. " or " If I do not transfer addictions then I did not have wls. " Of course this makes no sense whatsoever because people might not transfer addictions for a number of reasons. It's simply not possible for a conditional statement to be true while all the others are false. It's not logical. Mike in GR (sorry for the book again) > > I completely understand about the transfer addictions. I do have > addictive tendencies and overeating was part of the cause of my > weight gain. > I can personally see the relationship with WLS and other addictions. > I didn't watch Oprah. > > ~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 You ROCK girl!!! I LOVE when you pull out that soapbox and put things into perspective!!! Thank you!!!! OXOXOX > > > > Wow, I guess I'm in for some big trouble according to Oprah. She's > on > > TV now saying that " Thousands " of people who had this surgery are > now > > alcoholic's, drug abusers, sleeping around on thier spouses etc. > > Apparently I only traded one addiction for another. I don't see that > > happening. Well Oprah, I had the surgery on 5 Sep this year and I'm > > doing great. Guess I'll just do the best I can for those people > having > > problems and pray for them. Wish you all the best as always, this is > a > > great site. Take care everyone! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.