Help, My Wife Listens to Kate Harding

This may be useless info or not even info but a useless theory, but maybe on the other hand it will help.

It’s important I think to realize, and most of us don’t because we don’t think that way, that to the vast majority of people there is for some reason an enormous psychological resistance to viewing food as something consumed for benefit to the body,

to genuinely view (as opposed to say it without meaning it) given tasty foods to be bad, and even to view that some foods have special benefits and others do not and that a person should take advantage of this.

As an illustration of how incredibly deep-seated and widespread this is, consider the question, “Why did Britain, a tiny island nation, rule the seas and dominate the world for centuries?”

The answer is because they discovered that limes cured scurvy and though they published the fact, for a couple hundred years or so the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD was too damned stupid and stubborn to accept that consuming limes prevented scurvy. They would not do it. So their sailors and ocean-transported soldiers were unhealthy from long sea voyages due to zero Vitamin C.

They flat-out ridiculed the stupid British notion that eating a different food could avoid a disease. The obvious proof that it was true was insufficient to overcome the psychological bias.

Gout also was a product of this mentality.

To this day, while we all know it’s true that dietary changes including appropriate dietary supplements in many instances make more difference to avoiding diseases and even reversing them than most pharmaceutical drugs do.

Most doctors have zero interest and even have, whether they admit or not, a psychological bias that if they recommended a dietary supplement, why, that would be UNPROFESSIONAL!

While prescribing a drug that does not work as well and has adverse side effects, why that is very professional.

Similarly, and this is getting where it’s relevant, your wife may very much have a mental block against genuinely recognizing given foods as being truly bad in effect on the body with significant consumption, truly viewing different macronutrient intake as being something that should be done, etc.

The bias towards “Food is something to eat because we want to eat it and any other view is what crazy people think” can be an enormous one.

Yeah, I think she views tasty food as a privilege. It’s a reward, a luxury. Calories are side-effects of food, and it would be unhealthy to deny yourself from this.

Body For Life is a book?

[quote]synthetic wrote:
Yeah, I think she views tasty food as a privilege. It’s a reward, a luxury. Calories are side-effects of food, and it would be unhealthy to deny yourself from this.

Body For Life is a book?
[/quote]

There is a book and a website

It’s possible this may help if, as hopefully will be the case, your wife does decide to do something to help herself.

And if she is (many are not) one of those persons that can deal with concerning themselves with being able to know things like which foods are very low in fat and which are not, and which foods are very low in carbs and which are not.

A very, very simple not-too-ambitious program that would yield a lot of results very easily would be to take one of John Berardi’s methods and do it as is or with the slight modification suggested.

The requirements are really simple:

  1. From morning to mid or late afternoon (completely optional where the cut-off point is and it can vary from day to day) keep dietary fat very low. Carbs are OK. Avoid ever really having way too much at any one time but “deprivation” isn’t required.

  2. From that point on in the day and into the evening, the diet is strict low-carb. If going to have a larger meal, have it in the earlier part of that time period rather than late in the evening.

Optional: Rather than having a sharp transition, it’s perfectly workable to allow approximately isocaloric meals in the early and mid afternoon. Isocaloric meaning that neither fat nor carbs are terribly high, that everything, including protein, is in good mixed and about equal proportion.

The beauty parts of this method are that aside from how it works better with the metabolism than many other plans, it tends to naturally reduce caloric intake on account of strongly limiting, most or all of the time, either fat or carbs; but with many foods does not deprive the person of those foods across the day overall. It just means that if you love pasta, OK you can have some lowfat pasta for lunch but don’t have it for dinner, rather than having to deprive oneself of it for months on end.

Or if allowing the isocaloric transition, pretty much anything that is not just downright awful stuff can be eaten at some point of the day, so being deprived is taken to being really a non-issue.

(Without having the optional transition period, then foods that are inherently mixed protein/fat/carbs are never allowable in any substantial quantity. So allowing the transition is helpful when someone does not like ruling such foods out of their diet.)

Another thing that can help is to figure out the psychological type when it comes to how to deal with well-liked-but-nutritionally-disastrous foods.

Some people, for example myself, do best simply NOT EVER DECIDING to make those foods available, and preferably not keeping them in the house. For example while I like French fries, I simply do not eat them. I like cookies but do not eat them. Etc. Trying to allow “a little” consumption does not work for me.

However, it is acceptable if for example at someone’s house and they offer one of these things – I did not choose to make it available but it was put right in front of me – then allowing myself a small amount is acceptable.

Many people find that if they have a rule that it’s acceptable to buy and eat various kinds of junk, but the concept is to eat only very little of it, this is for them like an alcoholic deciding to buy a bottle of booze but only have a sip now and then. No, the only thing that will work is for him to decide he isn’t going to buy booze.

Others are completely different and cannot handle this method, but in fact can do pretty well or very well giving themselves a rule such as “Potato chips only on Saturdays and then only Lays Baked, two small bags” and do disastrously if they are supposed to not have any potato chips at all (or whatever.)

Most people never stop and think about what personality type they are in this regard or haven’t tried both methods for comparison, and if your wife is not sure which personality type she is on this, finding out and then doing things accordingly may help her a lot.

Good luck!!! :slight_smile:

Simple Dieting

  1. Never go too long without food: not more than 3-4 waking hours. Starvation is not the way to lose fat.

  2. Don’t restrict calories too severely. If you’re relying on guesswork, try to aim for about 2/3 of your normal, pre-diet caloric intake.

If you just are not going to total up daily calories, you absolutely can still have success though there will be more guesswork in the process. If this is how you feel, then skip the parts below about figuring calories. Instead, try only to have a general idea of about how many calories are in each meal – even though you are not going to add them up – and try to eat about the same total amount each day, with some variation being OK. When you’ve lost at least 3 or 4 lb of fat or at least two weeks have passed, you can evaluate whether your calories are good or need to be adjusted. Moving daily calories up or down by 500 will change rate of fat loss by about 1 lb per week.

But if you can, it’s better to count daily calories.

  1. Eat “healthy” fats. Some of this can be from supplements: EFA’s (or fish or flax oil) and GLA (or borage or evening primrose oil) are helpful. Foods with particularly healthy fats include nuts, avocados, and olive oil, though portions of nuts need to be limited else calories can easily become much too much.

  2. Try for roughly one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. And as for carbohydrates, try for the same thing: roughly one gram per pound of bodyweight. It is OK to have just general ideas if you’re not familiar with particular values of foods.

If you are female and just really don’t like protein, then at least get half a gram per pound of bodyweight. But preferably, with time, adjust your way upwards to the one gram value. It will help.

  1. Combine foods. Don’t eat protein-only meals, or carb-only meals, or fat-only meals. Instead, have protein/carb meals, protein/fat meals, or protein/carb/fat meals.

A moderate calorie, low-or-mid-glycemic carb-only snack such as an apple is perfectly OK.

Strongly avoid carb/fat meals or snacks.

When eating protein/carb/fat meals, particularly watch out that the total meal size is not too much. More than about 1/3 of the total planned daily calories is too much, as is a meal that will push the calories for the day to too high a value.

  1. Keep in mind that many carb/fat foods such as most muffins that are sold can easily be 600 calories each – which is a disaster.

  2. Try to eat your protein/carb meals during the first half of the day if possible and your protein/fat meals during the second half of the day.

  3. Decide your portions before eating. Set out what you want to eat, and stick with that decision. No one meal should constitute more than 30 to 35 percent of your daily total, at most.

Q: How many calories should I eat each day?

A: Figure your minimum calories per day by multiplying your body weight by 12 if male, or 11 or 12 if female. For example, if you are a man weighing 200 pounds, multiplying your body weight by 12 gives you 2400 calories per day.

The exception is that if you are well over what would be a good long-term ideal realistic weight – some figure that would be very healthful – you can use an intermediate weight or if necessary that weight to figure calories.

For example suppose you weigh 200 and using that weight to figure calories proved to not give you a good rate of fat loss. And let’s say 160 lb would be much more healthful weight for you. Then, use an adjusted weight such as 180 lb to figure your calories. If that proves after a couple of weeks to still be too much then try figuring from the 160 lb value.

Don’t use an adjusted weight below what makes sense. For example, if female don’t use a weight that would correspond to a painfully-thin anorexic supermodel of your height.

Q: What if I’m female, very substantially overweight, and unsure on how low is reasonable to go if needing to use an adjusted weight for figuring calories?

A: You can use this calculator:

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Enter your actual weight and height, and see what your BMI is. If it’s already under 20, then you are not very substantially overweight, if even at all, and just using your actual weight should be fine. The same is pretty much true if in the range of 20-22. If it’s well over 22, then try entering various lower weights until you see what weights correspond to a BMI of 20-22.

You can then, if calories based on your actual weight are proving too much, try an intermediate weight between your actual weight and the value you found by this method. Again, if that intermediate weight proves after a couple of weeks to still be too much, then use the weight corresponding to a BMI of 20-22, or some weight “splitting the difference.”

Q: If I found it best to use a calorie value based on adjusted weight, can I use that adjusted weight instead of actual weight to figure protein and carb grams?

A: Yes.

Q: I’ve already lost a considerable amount of fat. Should I make any adjustments?

A: If you’ve already lost considerable fat on the program and fat loss now is too slow, you should reduce your calorie and gram values to reflect your new, lower body weight.

Q: What if the above-recommended amount has me losing weight very fast and though I’m following all these principles I’m hungry or lacking energy? Or what if I’ve been at it long enough that a slower rate of loss while eating more seems a good idea. Can I go higher?

A: Yes. If you have a faster metabolism or do a lot of exercise, a daily value such as 13-15 calories per lb may be more appropriate for you. Or if you’ve been steadily losing 2 or 3 lb of fat per week, increasing by say 500 calories per day will still allow you good fat loss and may be much more sustainable for you long-term.

Q: What if I’ve reached a desired weight and want to hold it? How many calories should I add back in?

A: Estimate how many pounds of fat you lost in the last month. For each pound lost, you can allow yourself an extra 120 calories per day beyond what you were having in that month. Give the new caloric intake a month to see what happens. If necessary, adjust monthly on the same principle.

Q: Any other tips on types of meals?

A: Try noticing which meals or sorts of meals meet the above principles and leave you feeling you’ve eaten a fully satisfactory amount both at the time and after despite being pretty modest in calories.

These are very helpful to consume on a regular and frequent basis.

And also try to notice which meals or types of meals that despite having lots of calories either don’t seem to be as much as you’d have liked to eat at the time or which you leave you hungry fairly shortly after.

Limiting these types of meals will really help.

Q: Do I need to worry about any micronutrient deficiencies while I’m dieting?

A: Yes, unfortunately it’s likely when reducing calories to have micronutrient deficiencies unless special care is taken.

To avoid this, use a good multi-vitamin/multi-mineral and especially make sure that these are present in adequate amounts: potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc, and chromium. That is not always the case and you may need to use more than one product to cover all the bases.

It is also very helpful to take additional Vitamin D giving a total of 3000-4000 IU/day. There are now 2000 IU soft-tabs available so this is easy to do.

Lastly, make sure that Vitamin B6 intake is sufficient. A good amount is 50 mg/day. For some people, the pyridoxal phosphate form works better. In this case 25 mg/day is sufficient.

Q: What’s a good rate of fat loss?

A: Rapid fat loss is probably best limited to eight weeks at a time, or to cycles of two weeks of intensive dieting separated by one week at weight-maintaining calories.

“Slow but steady” fat loss, this being rates of up to about one pound per week, may be continued as long as appropriate. This can be the best approach for many people. More overweight people may well be able to sustain 2 pounds per week, but an ongoing 1 lb per week really, really adds up in quite reasonable time. Next year really will happen, and if overweight by an amount such as say 52 lb or any greater value, being that much lighter a year from now is just an outstanding thing to have accomplished!

Don’t knock yourself if that’s your rate of fat loss. It can really do the job. If your diet change is sustainable and realistic, as these changes are, and you achieve a rate such as that, you’re absolutely on the way to great success! And you will soon far surpass those that try crash-loss or other unsustainable programs.

Update/correction: October Girl had asked if serotonin was only a brain chemical, or was stored in fat.

I replied that as far as I knew it was only a brain chemical.

I was wrong in that. Most of it in fact exists outside the brain.

Reportedly, most of the body’s storage is in blood platelets.

It must have some solubility in bodyfat. However, loss of bodyfat would have, in that regard, the effect of releasing an amount (probably not an important amount) of serotonin, which would if anything would be in the direction of being helpful, rather than being a factor leading to further frustration.

However if the thought was that rapid weight gain could lead to a worsening serotonin problem on account of lowering serotonin levels by some of it going into the new fat, and the worsening serotonin situation resulting in even greater eating thus resulting in even greater fat accumulation, etc, it’s logical that that is the direction the effect would be. I don’t know if the amount is major enough to be significant though.

It is specifically stated in the literature that the major storage area is the platelets, which means that fat storage must be less than half the total, which means that increasing bodyfat by say one percent in a day (which would be a very very fast gain for a fat person, e.g. someone with 100 lb of bodyfat gaining 1 lb of fat in a day, 7 lb in a week) would dilute out the serotonin by less than 1%.

So, from that examination-in-principle I wouldn’t think the effect would be large enough to have practical effect.

But I was wrong in thinking serotonin was only a brain chemical.

Bill, thanks for writing that book for me. :slight_smile: Part of the issue is she doesn’t feel like making dieting the center of her life right now: when she’s dieting in the past it’s all she could think about. You’ve given a lot of ideas here that she can gradually work into her routine.

Thanks again, everyone, for your tips and support.

I hope it helps!

You know, on further thought and looking back at it, while on the one hand I hate to get rid of the detail on micronutrients because it’s both much more individually-accurate and yet concise than anything generally found in books or articles, still it makes the overall thing more complex that it probably ought to be, even though it still is fairly concise (under 2000 words anyway, with the actual instructions as opposed to explanation and encouragement being well under 1000 words I think.)

I wonder if it would be possible to create a webpage calculator that would produce those values, so that all it would have to read would be to use a good multivitamin/multimineral and particularly check that these specific things are being taken care of. To see how much you individually need of these, you can use this calculator.

That would further simplify it some. It could possibly make the difference for many between seeming simple and doable enough, or too complicated and hard.

But personally I have no idea how to set that up. And of course it would not be so useful to those having only a printed-out copy. So I dunno.

I also probably over-estimate how concise others may find what I write. 2000 words seems like very little to me, as it takes me only 60 seconds or less to read, but for many it’s 10-20 minutes of reading. So it may be just flat too lengthy as well :frowning:

[quote]synthetic wrote:
Bill, thanks for writing that book for me. :slight_smile: Part of the issue is she doesn’t feel like making dieting the center of her life right now: when she’s dieting in the past it’s all she could think about. You’ve given a lot of ideas here that she can gradually work into her routine.

Thanks again, everyone, for your tips and support.
[/quote]

This is a really long thread, and I don’t have time to go back through it all, but one thing sticks out here. What was it about your wife’s previous diets that didn’t work, despite it being a big focus for her?

For most people, the answer is one of compliance. At a site like this, it’s easy to get caught up in the details of diets: how many calories to eat, macro breakdowns, meal timing, type of cardio and how long, etc.

But really, it doesn’t matter what kind of diet a person chooses to undertake if they aren’t going to stick to it, and stick to it long term.

The reason why dieting is so hard is because it involves extensive behavior change. Behavior change is extremely hard to do, in all aspects of life, especially when someone has such a long history with behaving a certain way.

Kate Harding likes to talk about how dieting isn’t effective because people gain the weight they lost right back. Well, that doesn’t tell me that dieting isn’t effective. What it does tell me is that dieting IS effective, but that most people simply don’t stick with it over an extended period of time. That’s why the people who make permanent lifestyle changes will be the ones who lose the weight AND keep it off.

For many of the people on this site, it may be a little hard to relate to, because we’ve already done this. This IS our lifestyle, while for the average person it isn’t.

Just some stuff to keep in mind.

For anyone interested in the Simple Dieting article above, I changed the micronutrient section to make it shorter and much simpler, and therefore hopefully less of or not an obstacle for anyone. If anyone does want the more detailed micronutrient information, this is what had been there:


Certain minerals and electrolytes are especially likely to be deficient. It truly is worthwhile to determine your intake of each of them, and compare to these values:

– Potassium: 3.5 grams per hundred pounds of bodyweight. Morton’s “Lite Salt” provides 0.7 g potassium per half-teaspoon together with 0.6 g sodium.

– Calcium: 1000 mg or 100% RDA per hundred pounds bodyweight.

– Magnesium: 500 mg or 125% RDA per hundred pounds bodyweight.

– Phosphorus: 1000 mg or 100% RDA per hundred pounds bodyweight.

– Zinc: 15 mg or 100% RDA per 100 lb bodyweight. Double these figures if the source is zinc oxide.

For these above nutrients, if quite substantially overweight then figure the needed amounts from what would be a fairly trim bodyweight for you, rather than your actual bodyweight.

– Chromium: At least 200 mcg/day.

It is /very/ easy to be deficient in these very necessary minerals.

In terms of vitamins, two especially vital for fat loss to check are:

– Vitamin D: At least 1000 IU per day and more preferably 3000-4000 IU per day. Not only will this aid fat loss, but additional benefits include strengthening the immune system, reducing risk of osteoporosis, and reducing risk of breast cancer.

– Vitamin B6: At least 50 mg/day. Some will do better using the pyridoxal-5-phosphate form of B6. If this is used, then 25 mg/day can be plenty.


But my thought is, forcing someone to have to take that information in along with everything else may be counterproductive. So if trying to help someone, I would suggest providing only the Simple Diet version above. The fact that it doesn’t define exact amounts for the micronutrients is nowhere near as important as is not being too daunting.

synthetic,

Maybe it has already been mentioned, but has she had a physical? Blood work would probably demonstrate that she is unhealthy and it is hard to argue against objective facts. If she accepts defeat regarding the aesthetic aspect, hopefully the physical (i.e., early death) would motivate her to lose some weight.

Also, I agree that T-Nation is not the place for her; Body for Life is a better introduction.

jpb

Ever since reading all that Kate Harding stuff a few days ago, I seem to be seeing fat activist propaganda all over the place. I saw an ad for an indie documentary where all these obese old ladies get in their swimsuit costumes and do synchronized swimming shows, and have individuals get up in front of a camera and get naked and talk about their body image issues, and have interviews with different fat activists and fat rights activists (apparently fat rights activism is totally different than fat activism itself).

I didn’t even know “fat activism” existed before this thread. I googled fat activist and wasted about an hour just looking at 20 different websites and blogs devoted to it, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. WOW. Just wow. I am blown away by how huge a “movement” this is, and how much MONEY these people are making off of spreading their “love and acceptance.”

Another observation: from what I’ve seen, almost all these fat activists and fat group members are women.

Also, they keep citing this “fact” that “it is better to be fat and healthy, or fat and fit, than skinny and unhealthy.” Over and over I am seeing the argument that such and such person worked out and feels much better now that they don’t wheeze climbing stairs, but since they haven’t lost a single pound, it means that they are naturally heavier and just need to accept their weight and change the idea of what is healthy in their minds and in society.

All this just has me wondering: Is it even possible for a fat activist (or fat activism supporter/groupie) and a T-Nation type to be compatible and have a healthy relationship? How on earth would you be able to integrate your lifestyles or come to a decision about how to raise a family? It almost seems like those two mindsets are mutually exclusive.

I have not even any ideas whatsoever on the compatibility question, couldn’t begin to even suggest the first thing: definitely that’s an important and pretty deep question. Personally, having had one long-term relationship with a woman who was somewhat overweight to start with, added quite a bit over several years, then ultimately slowly lost all the additional and got trimmer than she was in the first place, I made a point of not doing anything whatsoever except complimenting whenever she was doing anything right and making a big (but not overly-put-on) deal of any success.

However, what I would have done if she hadn’t herself decided to turn around at the biggest point, I don’t know because that was starting to hit the alarm point in terms of health. Could I have dealt with staying that heavy and not wishing to change or getting fatter yet, and how would I have dealt with it? I have absolutely zero idea. I would have had to had have lived through it to know or even have an idea what I would do. It’s a tough situation for sure.

On why it’s principally women that are “fat activists”:

My guess is that it’s because women actually are often overburdened with unrealistic expectations by society or unrealistic expectations they’ve been imprinted with , so to speak, since childhood. Much moreso than men anyway.

And women who are overweight are often shunned by others or obviously looked down upon by others or socially discriminated moreso than similarly-overweight men are.

So there’s more unhappiness to deal with, and therefore – if the better means of dealing with that unhappiness, losing the fat, has failed again and again for these women – there is more drive to find an alternate means of countering that unhappiness.

Just as a guess.

Does she accept negative comments, because of the hundreds of comments under that blog, I didn’t see any that we even borderline critical.

I was gonna post one, what I figured they are moderated and deleted.

[quote]Fiction wrote:
Does she accept negative comments, because of the hundreds of comments under that blog, I didn’t see any that we even borderline critical.

I was gonna post one, what I figured they are moderated and deleted.[/quote]

What do you mean by negative comments? If honest constructive criticism is being deleted at that site then that is pretty much proof that Kate Harding is not just deluded but fudamentally dishonest.

Just as an experiment, give it a try and see what happens.

Decided to try it. I wrote the following comments on the first link the OP provided:

“No one knows how to make a naturally thin person fat” is nonsense. You can make anyone fat by feeding them way too many calories over a long period of time, especially carbs, and restrict their physical activity. Sumo wrestlers intentionally put on hundreds of pounds this way - its called Chanko.

No, people should not be rude to fat people. Absolutely true. When I was fat people made hurtful comments and now that I’m lean and muscular people treat me better. Very sad, but true.

But to pretend that we do not control our own fatness or thinness is a lie."

The comments posted with the note that they were “awaiting moderation”. I’ll see if they stay up & report back.

My wife found a website that she is using to diet. Its not exactly how someone from T-Nation would lose weight. It has more carbs and sugar and less protein than i would like, but its a plan and she is sticking to it. http://www.sparkpeople.com/ It has support stuff like forums I think. But a paln is better than no plan even if its not what I would do. Hope that might help.

I think getting her to read/study T-Nation and all the basic dieting guidelines will go a LONG way. Just knowing about this stuff is powerful. Education is so underrated, even if sometimes it’s a little bit of overinformation at least you’re thinking about it!

At this point all the basic dieting stuff has been drilled into my head so much that It’s second nature to me. It was just a huge mindset shift - before I came here, “indulging” was defined as pigging out and having insane amounts of junk food and cookies and shit, and it occurred multiple times a week.

Now, it’s more like having a something like a slice of cheesecake once per week or skipping a single meal out of 6 in a day. My standards for determining what bad eating was just became so much higher, so even when I do cheat on my diet i’m still eating WAY better than I did before.

I’m not sure what everyone else would agree is the #1 thing for her to do, but I think at the very least that you and her should make a plan to have NO sweets or sugar or anything like that for 2 whole weeks. Not only will this goal hopefully make her crave sweets less (it did for me), but it will make her feel like she accomplished something. If this isn’t doable then make it something easier. Just SOMETHING to make her feel like she has control over her body and has the power to accomplish her goals.

Everyone has a different way of doing this though, and different roadblocks to their success. For me, I needed to be thrown into the fire which is why I hired a PT right away who would kick my ass into gear and make me not miss workouts and such. I knew that my motivating factor was not letting someone (in this case my PT) down. Find her some source of motivation.

[quote]Miss Parker wrote:
Decided to try it. I wrote the following comments on the first link the OP provided:

“No one knows how to make a naturally thin person fat” is nonsense. You can make anyone fat by feeding them way too many calories over a long period of time, especially carbs, and restrict their physical activity. Sumo wrestlers intentionally put on hundreds of pounds this way - its called Chanko.

No, people should not be rude to fat people. Absolutely true. When I was fat people made hurtful comments and now that I’m lean and muscular people treat me better. Very sad, but true.

But to pretend that we do not control our own fatness or thinness is a lie."

The comments posted with the note that they were “awaiting moderation”. I’ll see if they stay up & report back.[/quote]

Miss Parker, I am very interested in seeing if your comment is posted. I highly doubt it though, as per these following rules listed on her comments page: (It is clear she does not have any desire for reasonable debate- only agreement.)

Sixth rule: There will be no promotion of deliberate weight loss or talk about how awesome your diet is. This is a fat acceptance blog.

Seventh rule: I really don�??t give a rat�??s ass if you don�??t understand why your comment was deleted, your account was banned, I was nasty to you, or other commenters were nasty to you and I didn�??t tell them to back off. The answer is, you were judged by the sole authority around here to be a troublemaking douchehound. No, really, that�??s the whole answer and the only answer.

Eighth rule: If you�??re really worried because you don�??t have any specific guidelines for not getting banned, try this: be good-natured and delightful. Clever and funny also go a long way with me. If you can�??t be any of those things, be coherent, reasonable, and respectful. You�??ll be fine.

Twelfth rule: All of the above rules are subject to change at my discretion.

Hi, Anj. I saw your post & checked back with Kate. My comment is no longer posted.

You are lovely, by the way. Can’t wait to see you progress through your transformation.