Posts by nsgardener

Hmmm I got off the topic.  what I wrote may not be of help. there really is nothing you CAN do about an offensive relative except making it clear you are not like him to others. If you knew what to do apart from ignoring it you would have figureded it out years ago when you were both younger.

anemia is a deficiency of the quantity or quality of hemoglobin in your red blood cells. Iron is important because iron is a necessary part of the hemoglobin molecule. Since it is the protein that transports oxygen its lack or poor function effects every organ in a persons body. there are 3 major ways anemia can occur. blood loss, poor production or excessive blood destruction.  

 Blood loss- because of a woman's blood loss from periods, women generally have a lower level of iron than men - they need to constantly replenish iron. This is generally the main reason why men are way less anemic in societies where there is poor nutrition. (why men are always stronger than women is a real life reality, not a baseless superstition)

Poor Production- lots of causes behind that as it could be both qualitative or quantitative poor production- it could range from heraditary-( often found in adapting to fighting malaria as in thalassaemia- the hemoglobin formed is poorer at transporting oxygen) to lack of iron in the diet- insufficient iron means the body cannot make enough hemoglobin to fill its red cells properly.(not only will the cells be a paler red because they have less hemoglobin, they will actually be produced smaller. The size of a Red blood cell and the amount of hemoglobin in a red cell is actually measured in a complete blood profile blood test so a blood test can be a very meaningful test showing lack of Iron for the body to use is a very likely cause of the Anemia)

Excessive blood destruction - the clearest case of this causing anemia is with sickle cell disease - people with this gene have non normal hemogoblin that causes the red cell to change shape when stressed. When abnormally shaped, the spleen removes them from circulation causing red cells life span to be shortened. If enough red cells sickle, the person becomes anemic as their body cannot produce red cells fast enough to replenish its short life span red cells. it is an adaption to prevent death from malaria.

So there is lots of possibilities for you doctor to explore if blood tests show you to be anemic. If a menstruating woman and if her diet or heavy periods are a  possible cause she may be asked to take Iron pills. If lack of iron in your diet is the simple easily identified cause of your anemia , a couple of months can easily have you back to normal levels- also cheap- $ 5 to 10 will give you a 3 month supply of iron pills. After that adding iron rich foods in your diet or a vitamin supplement high in Iron may be all you may need to prevent anemia from reoccurring.    

"In no religion would you be expected to fast if its detrimental to your health, your health is the most precious thing you have".  That statement does show your "ignorance". There is ignorance and ignorance.  I concede you can be very cleaver and know lots of things, I do not doubt that you can know 5 languages, traveled many lands and have a impressive degree. ( Not hard to make a such an appology as I was not meaning to insult. Actually fairly meaningless as everyone knows of more impressive people that have been wrong, and for that matter those with less experience that have been right.)  But why would falamel ever try fasting twice (not just even once) as a type 2 diabetic if your statement was remotely true. I do not know if you know but BBC has reported that in the UK admittence of diabetic muslims goes way up during Rammaden -why? they were fasting! Since diabetic comas carry a high risk of death why in a knowleagable, civilized land were so many muslims can easily reserch medical knowlege in fine libraries , are ignorant of the fact they should NOT be fasting according to your knowlege of fasting pratices possibly gained from living in a muslim country?  I'm sorry there is empirical evidence your stament does not reflect reality. It just reflects your views which to me shows you likely have a wonderful warm supportive personality- A very nice person in other words. The fact is many diabetics do try to fast for "religious" reasons. So what makes you think your statement above reflects reality? If you had said idealy, supposedly, it is sad that people are unaware, etc I'd have accepted your statement with no problem. If I cannot use the term 'ignorance', mind supplying me with whatever is the current political correct term that would apply to your lack of knowlege that would not offend you, people of your age, background or education? ( by the way words do change, in Canada in the late 1960's when calling someone retarded became "politicaly incorrect" (a term not yet coined back then) people started using ignorant. Talk about the word Ignorant been a fighting word back then! If you were a Canadian back then you would be fighting mad, not just "insulted")

As for not understanding Surrogate parenthood comment .probebly it is not clear. I'm just trying to say if new advances in medicine can easily show seculaist are slow at understanding all consequences behind the new advance, how can you expect religions to cope any faster? For years it is known "fasting" can complicate treating insulin dependent people to the point they are likely to die. Yet 80 years of treating diabeties have yet to have all religions clearly forbidding type 1 diabetics to fast.  If your comment about religions and fasting is true, for years upon years people like flamal would never dream of fasting and not one muslim would be admitted to emergency wards in diabetic comas because they were trying to fast during Ramaden.

Chlesegirl- maybe that about religious fasting is true. Lent for Christians is what Mohamad copied for Ramadan.  Lent and its spiritulal fasting is rarely followed by Christians now. Even the most devote Roman Catholic's do not make a public showing of following it the way Muslims are flamboyant (and police state) about it.  Brazillians evolvedthe festive Mardi Gras. Some muslims have started partying evey night of Rammaden.

 Your interpretation of religious fasting is different from mine when it comes to Diabetics. Diabetic are "sick" as far as not eating for hours is detrimentral for their health.  May be we could compare it to smoking. some people never suffer from cancer and other illness and causes of death from smoking,  some die  before then,other quit smoking for other reasons. You can not deny that there is evidence that the habit of smoking a lot of tobacco either eventually makes their lives miserable or kills them. Fasting - not eating for hours for hours  is the same problem for Diabetics.  for type 2 diabetics it is the long term effects only that is a problem, type1 has both immediate death and long term complications resulting in death from diabetes.  Why quibble all - like someone quipped- all deaths are "heart attacks"- You die when your heart stop beating.

"In no religion would you be expected to fast if its detrimental to your health, your health is the most precious thing you have."  I'm sorry to say that statement shows your youth and ignorance.  Many religions have religious pratices that are detrimental to health.  Time and time again people like falamel who started this posting refuse to accept they should not fast.  If it really was  clear that fasting should not be allowed if it was detrimental to health, famael would NEVER have made her attempts to fast.  Just like nobody would dream of taking up smoking if they wanted to be "healthy". Religion has yet to catch up with western medical knowledge.  Most organized religions are years behind in science, let alone medicine. Even man made laws are years behind- just look at the fights over surrogate parented children to see recent innovation is tricky to resolve.  ( DNA testing as to who the child really is-the implanted egg died while the surrogate mother's egg fertilized by her partner thrived caused a lot of grief. People desperate to be parents refusing to believe. Or surrogate mother refusing to hand over clearly contracted babies, or parent-to-be refusing defective babies -tetrologic, congenital  or genetic defects)

check with your Dr about the 20 lb difference. It may be he does not think it is that much of a problem as long as you do not gain, do other things right and have that weight loss seen to in less than a year's time. Also mention the deep fry foods - he may decide losing weight is important to ofset that. ( also check with him more than once, since your last question he may have come across some report that may change his answer- is 20 lb a big deal or not is hardly likely to have a hard and fast answer. 50 lbs yes, 20lbs for a 5' 5" might not be or be iffy) Most who have to lose weigh are much more overweight than 20 lb's.  doing other things right (no smoking,alcohol,stressfull family occasions,etc) may be enough for the short term.  remember too, high blood pressure when so young is a chronic condition- it may be years before irredemable damage occours- all unnesscary if you had done the right things young and the sooner you start the better. 3 mths till you move out, another 3 to lose the weight on a lifestyle basis may be an acceptable timeline ( you are talking of a lifespan of 80 years!) in your Dr's view. Hopefully all the responses to your post WILL lower you blood pressure- you sound stressed by your situation.

You must remember your body is been "sick". Been ill does weird things to your metabolism.   I'd say you should be consulting medical texts to see if you are perfectly normal for a "sick" person before been upset about a 2lb loss.  to loose only 2 lb when your body is desperately tyring to retain body reserves while fighting your "illness", I would say is a perfectly logical thing for your body to do.   (one silver lining- if you are sick like that again and seem to loose weight be suspicious your body is acting weird and you illness may be more than "flu").  where your weight is near "normal" it is possible your body KNOWS it does not have excess reserves of fat to use to fight your illness and may be trying to retain as much of the food you are eating as body stores. Why do you think "fat" people recover from an illness better- they have body reserves that can be used by the body when their "illness" is disrupting their digestion and metabolism. They can afford not to eat  so as to keep down the nausea and let them do their regular "work" with  a better spirit. (work may be nothing more than been abed letting their body fight the "flu"quickly)  Myself I'd say if you are nauseated, do not eat - your body is telling you its not happy about "food" during the course of this short illness. Just have nourishing liquids your stomach can tolerate, maybe get a supply of good pro-biotic yogurt ( kifer is considered excellent)  to help your digestive system recover faster once you stop been nauseated.   Diets for losing weight are usually designed for healthy people - you cannot expect them to work the same for unhealthy or chronically ill people.

looks like once you finish with Law exams, you should start educating yourself in biology. It is appalling to think anyone smart enough to write law exams be so deficient in medical knowledge that you do not immediately suspect your "flu" is interfering with your weight loss program. Look up the physiology of the body when confronted with stomach upsetting diseases like cholera, etc. Diabetes, chronic bowl syndrome and chemotherapy will give you insights on how differently your digestive system respond to illness.  Just like Dr and lawyers seem to know little about investing or car mechanics, lawyers seem to be clueless about Biology- from recent news reports- Bill Clinton seems to be clueless embryos are a result of fertilization, and Barak Obama seems clueless what the term "clone" implies when he babbled about not allowing cloning when signing a bill to open up stem cell research( the whole point of stem cells is to figure out a way to "clone"-in other words copy an organ as compared to true cloning which copys an animals DNA to the point a that Dolly the sheep is born - the first known cloned animal (mammal)). Both presidents are lawyers and obviously never took (or rememberd anything from) high school bilogy.  (excuse the rant- Obama reminds me of my-know- it- all- I'm-always- right older brother and mother who thinks her precious oldest son is "perfect".  All Obama had to do talk to a medicaly knowlagable high shool bilogy student before displaying his crass ignorance of basic biology to the world. It is scary to think such an ignoramus is reforming Health care - I do hope he consults people with more medical knowlege than the biology he knows.  How can anyone so ignorant (obviously he is no polymath) make sense of line by line approval  of bills he signs)

try cooking red lentils with canned tomatoes. I use stewed or herbed  for already present seasoning if I'm in a rush. depending on how much lentils you add it could be so thick it can be like a dip or thin like a soup. Leftover meat is a quick addition( I love a few frozen shrimp).  If the flavour is not that strong for your taste add some bullion cubes/powder for a very quick fix.  I know you said you do not like Indian, but try with just a little bit of curry powder/paste/sauce  ( heat curry powder in a bit of oil/ butter to bring out the flavour)-it will eliminate the need for salt or bullion( they usually are heavy on salt). Other vegetables can be added-eggplant or Zucchiniis especially good if it has a curry flavouring. Extra onions and garlic is also good. I have not tried it but using green lentils might work with an Italian or french type herb flavouring.  red lentils definitely for a curry style.

a lot of Asians have eaten white rice every day for centuries. How much you eat is the problem. One cup of cooked rice is actually not a large amount to eat- Asians regularly eat at least that much with their meals.  the poor generally bulk up their meals with rice. coolies - the lowest of day labourers are traditionally said to live on rice with fried onions and salt.- sounds much like the Egyptians building pyrimids ate(onion, salt, oil and grain-bread of some type?) ( of course such workers also had short lives- probebly poor nutrition combined with very hard labour) There are other benefits to rice-it is easily digested and as a result it is good for your digestive system- few people have an upset stomach problem when they eat rice.  a "coolie" meal is a favourite- white rice eaten with thinly sliced onions fried till it is brown, the oil the onions were cooked in and salt  to taste is very tasty.

v avila has spotted your problem - the sugar has to be beaten into the egg whites. basicly you are making a meringue then folding the flour and flavourings. 

http://allrecipes.com/HowTo/Perfect-Meringues /Detail.aspx

http://allrecipes.com/HowTo/Making-an-Angel-F ood-Cake-Video/Detail.aspx

http://southernfood.about.com/od/angelfoodcak es/r/bl30223k.htm

Place some rasins on top of the peanut butter that is in the hollow curve of the celery stick. then you will be eating "ants on a log" - great daycare snack.

Stevia is a natural sweetener.  the first time I tried it I found there was a"artifical" taste to it. I was not happy since I could not stand that in sweetners.  Since then I found some people are not as sensitive to the"artifical" taste and that different baches of stevia can be different by what this herb seller says  http://www.richters.com/Web_store/web_store.c gi?product=X6031&show=&prodclass=Herb _and_Vegetable_Plants&cart_id=8573624.194 70

Crazy Sweet™ Stevia Stevia rebaudiana 'AC™ GIIA11'
Uses: Culinary/Medicinal Duration: Perennial (hardy in zones 11+)   Super sweet! No bitter aftertaste! This is the best stevia variety on the market. If you tried stevia before and disliked the taste, you will love this new variety. When you try the leaves you will notice that the taste is very clean and incredibly sweet: there is no bitterness and none of the licorice aftertaste typical of other stevias. Its magic is in the mix of compounds that are responsible for the sweet taste. Unlike regular stevia, Crazy Sweet™ is high in rebaudioside A, the sweetest and least bitter of the steviosides found in stevia. It is the result of a successful Canadian breeding program to make stevia a better alternative to sugar.

I got the following from a diabetes education program, and did not really find this aspect about diabeties clearly written out elsewhere. Most stuff was the problems of out of control diabetes- not about the long term effects of poor control as compared to what happens when very out of control. 

  The why of diabetes long term problems.   In long term problems, the problem is the damage to the blood vessels - the smaller they are they more likely the damage. (Blood vessels provide transportation-capillaries are the term for the smallest diameter blood vessels.)  Red blood cells that flow along the blood vessels along with the glucose are what causes the long term damage to the capillaries. Because red blood cells carry oxygen to cells and remove carbon-dioxide they go all over the body is why diabetes damage is so wide spread throughout the body. When glucose levels are high, glucose can “stick" to the exterior of red blood cells. The higher the glucose levels, the more glucose floating around in blood vessels that can attach to red cell walls.  This attachment makes the red cells stiffer, harder etc. and more damaging when they hit blood vessel walls (which they do all the time with the heart's pressure moving the blood flow). Over time the capillary walls can get so scarred (narrowed) they slow down or even block passage of red cells. The blocked blood vessels cause poor transportation of cellular needs.  The cells start function poorly and may even die (starve). If enough cells die, the organs cannot function well.  The more the damage - the greater the "illness' of the organ, and the more complications that arise from diabetes. Finally one dies an early death because out of control glucose levels have damaged too many essential organs in the diabetic's body.   This is a simplified explanation.

 For a slightly more complicated one that explains nerve damage- nerves do run next to blood vessels. It is felt that the damage to the blood vessel walls is sometimes so extensive that the myelin sheath cells that surround the nerves also get damaged when they lie next to the badly damaged blood vessel.

 There are other things that can happen to make things worse- high blood pressure for example will make the stiff glucose studded red cells that hit and damage cell walls hit more often and harder, than would happen with a normal blood pressure.   There is high cholesterol - cholesterol tends to stick to damaged blood vessel walls-so a combination of high cholesterol and high glucose means damaged walls will get blood vessels blocked faster. There is problems associated with heavy abdominal fat that seem to stress the function of the pancreas. No explanation for this but since one cannot spot reduce, one has to lose fat all over the body in order that the pancreas start to function better. And so on.

Now a quick going over of the basics.

Diabetes is high levels of glucose in the blood.

The higher the amount of glucose floating around red cells in the bloodstream, the more likely they will attach to a red cell.

The more glucose attached, the "stiffer" and "rougher" the red cell becomes.

This stiffer Red blood cells impact on the blood vessel wall can cause damage of the blood vessel walls.

Too many such impacts and the damage cannot be easily repaired

These rough up areas can collect debris and in the smallest capillaries can easily block off transport to cells causing cell death.

Enough cell deaths and organs cannot function well 

Some organs cannot replace the damaged cells (or cannot replace them fast enough).

Over time the organ (eyes, kidney, etc) "fails".

If enough organs fail the result is early death for the diabetic.

Having the "mechanics" of the problem explained is great.  All of a sudden eating smaller amounts of foods that raise blood sugars makes sense (you can carefully spread the eating of that delicious slice of cake over 2 days instead of at one sitting) Eating every 4 to 6 hours to keep sugar levels steady makes sense, especially useful idea if you NEED to modify calories for an high activity lifestyle.  Having A1C test done ever 3 to 4 months makes sense, and if the A1C levels DO NOT match your records of your sugar levels you KNOW something is wrong. Etc.    The "good" thing that researchers have found is that if you can keep a good control the complications will "never" happen to you. (Never means you will die of something else!). If you can keep the sugar levels to “normal" it is possible the body may have a chance to heal. So some parts of your body may become as functional as they were before getting damaged by the consequences of a high glucose levels.  This means for the type 2 diabetic - one day’s lack of control will result in about 120 days of damaging red blood cells floating around. (And one's A1C levels revealing that lack of control for 120 days)

.  By the way the A1C tests for the amount of glucose that attaches to red cells. Since red blood cells only have a life span of 120 days at the most, having the test done gives your doctor an idea of how well you have managed to keep your sugars close to a healthy normal in the last three, four months.  This is a very important way to judge the possible long term damage. You should check to find out, (I forget) but there is an incredibly large link between having the A1C levels normal and avoiding long term complications. It may be an excellent way for you to find if your diabetes is becoming worse if you find you do not really need the finger prick test that often. Checking the glucose levels is more important the worse your sugar level control. At prediabetic levels, continuous finger pricks may not be that very useful if you are also getting regular A1C tests done. 

it seems unhelpful advice but when I was at a diabetic information program,when I asked about how much a very over weightperson should lose at a time, the dietitian seem to feel 10% of body weight followed by a plateau of up to a year. that sounded ridiculously long. but since the program has followed diabetic clients for with problems for years I suppose she may have some basis for thinking it works best long term. I still feel its way too long term. 10 years to lose half your weight seems to be not helpful even if you are just a newly diagnosed typeII with out that high a sugar problem.

 I got the following from a diabetes education program, and did not really find this aspect about diabeties clearly written out elsewhere. Most stuff was the problems of out of control diabetes- not about the long term effects of poor control as compared to what happens when very out of control. 

  The why of diabetes long term problems.   In long term problems, the problem is the damage to the blood vessels - the smaller they are they more likely the damage. (Blood vessels provide transportation-capillaries are the term for the smallest diameter blood vessels.)  Red blood cells that flow along the blood vessels along with the glucose are what causes the long term damage to the capillaries. Because red blood cells carry oxygen to cells and remove carbon-dioxide they go all over the body is why diabetes damage is so wide spread throughout the body. When glucose levels are high, glucose can “stick" to the exterior of red blood cells. The higher the glucose levels, the more glucose floating around in blood vessels that can attach to red cell walls.  This attachment makes the red cells stiffer, harder etc. and more damaging when they hit blood vessel walls (which they do all the time with the heart's pressure moving the blood flow). Over time the capillary walls can get so scarred (narrowed) they slow down or even block passage of red cells. The blocked blood vessels cause poor transportation of cellular needs.  The cells start function poorly and may even die (starve). If enough cells die, the organs cannot function well.  The more the damage - the greater the "illness' of the organ, and the more complications that arise from diabetes. Finally one dies an early death because out of control glucose levels have damaged too many essential organs in the diabetic's body.   This is a simplified explanation.

 For a slightly more complicated one that explains nerve damage- nerves do run next to blood vessels. It is felt that the damage to the blood vessel walls is sometimes so extensive that the myelin sheath cells that surround the nerves also get damaged when they lie next to the badly damaged blood vessel.

 There are other things that can happen to make things worse- high blood pressure for example will make the stiff glucose studded red cells that hit and damage cell walls hit more often and harder, than would happen with a normal blood pressure.   There is high cholesterol - cholesterol tends to stick to damaged blood vessel walls-so a combination of high cholesterol and high glucose means damaged walls will get blood vessels blocked faster. There is problems associated with heavy abdominal fat that seem to stress the function of the pancreas. No explanation for this but since one cannot spot reduce, one has to lose fat all over the body in order that the pancreas start to function better. And so on.

Now a quick going over of the basics.

Diabetes is high levels of glucose in the blood.

The higher the amount of glucose floating around red cells in the bloodstream, the more likely they will attach to a red cell.

The more glucose attached, the "stiffer" and "rougher" the red cell becomes.

This stiffer Red blood cells impact on the blood vessel wall can cause damage of the blood vessel walls.

Too many such impacts and the damage cannot be easily repaired

These rough up areas can collect debris and in the smallest capillaries can easily block off transport to cells causing cell death.

Enough cell deaths and organs cannot function well 

Some organs cannot replace the damaged cells (or cannot replace them fast enough).

Over time the organ (eyes, kidney, etc) "fails".

If enough organs fail the result is early death for the diabetic.

Having the "mechanics" of the problem explained is great.  All of a sudden eating smaller amounts of foods that raise blood sugars makes sense (you can carefully spread the eating of that delicious slice of cake over 2 days instead of at one sitting) Eating every 4 to 6 hours to keep sugar levels steady makes sense, especially useful idea if you NEED to modify calories for an high activity lifestyle.  Having A1C test done ever 3 to 4 months makes sense, and if the A1C levels DO NOT match your records of your sugar levels you KNOW something is wrong. Etc.    The "good" thing that researchers have found is that if you can keep a good control the complications will "never" happen to you. (Never means you will die of something else!). If you can keep the sugar levels to “normal" it is possible the body may have a chance to heal. So some parts of your body may become as functional as they were before getting damaged by the consequences of a high glucose levels.  This means for the type 2 diabetic - one day’s lack of control will result in about 120 days of damaging red blood cells floating around. (And one's A1C levels revealing that lack of control for 120 days)

.  By the way the A1C tests for the amount of glucose that attaches to red cells. Since red blood cells only have a life span of 120 days at the most, having the test done gives your doctor an idea of how well you have managed to keep your sugars close to a healthy normal in the last three, four months.  This is a very important way to judge the possible long term damage. You should check to find out, (I forget) but there is an incredibly large link between having the A1C levels normal and avoiding long term complications. It may be an excellent way for you to find if your diabetes is becoming worse if you find you do not really need the finger prick test that often. Checking the glucose levels is more important the worse your sugar level control. At prediabetic levels, continuous finger pricks may not be that very useful if you are also getting regular A1C tests done. 

If you keep on asking, then you may be one of those who are never happy till they get an answer that they want. I find some use the response they like to justify their behavior. they use that as an excuse to do what they want. Its never their fault/ responsibility. Its always that of the person whose opinion they accepted. believe me when I say if you are that type, you will have more problems with people finding you disgusting than you will ever have with any amount of smoking. Unless you have serious mental problems, no one respects or values those who never take responsibility for their actions.