Posts by Douglas Green31

rapiddriver14 said:Honestly, I never thought I’d be the one starting a thread like this.
I'm 25, weigh about 110 pounds, and even though I'm thin, I have cellulite. It’s definitely not in my genetics—I didn't have any of this until I started taking Yasmin.
But now, it's showing up on my butt and legs. I wasn't really sweating the small stuff until my boyfriend mentioned it out of nowhere the other day (he claimed he was just joking afterward, though). It's especially noticeable on the outer part of my thighs, and it's really getting to me.
GIRLS, ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THIS NONSENSE, how do I get rid of it? Will it go away if I stop taking Yasmin?
Would swimming during the summer help? (I'm not really an athlete or anything)
Are there any effective creams you've actually used? Pills? Anything at all?
Just to be clear, I don't want to lose weight...
But seeing this is just awful and it's driving me crazy...
Help!!!!

Same thing here. My mother doesn't have an ounce of it, yet I'm absolutely overflowing with it.
I'm 26 years old, standing 5'10" and weighing 137 lbs.
I've had this issue for as long as I can remember, but things really went downhill once I started working at Logest.

I'll answer your questions based on my own experience:

Does anyone actually have a cure? How do I get rid of this crap?

Not happening.

Will it go away if I stop taking Yasmina?

No. I stopped drinking Logest—the cellulite didn't change one bit.

Will swimming during the summer actually do anything for me? (I'm not exactly an athlete.)

No.
I’m active enough as it is, so that won't change anything.

Has anyone actually had success with specific creams? Or maybe supplements? Anything at all?

As for creams? No.
The only thing that actually worked was this cream I ordered from the States, and of course, it costs an absolute fortune. But the second you stop using it, the problem comes right back within a few days.

As for cellulite pills, I haven't heard of anything actually working. Not that I've ever come across them.

If any of this actually worked for someone, great. For me? Not even a little bit. Aside from that cream I mentioned earlier, which clearly just provides an optical illusion, nothing here has helped at all.

I've been battling cellulite for years, and honestly? I've finally just given up on it.
I'm fed up with obsessing over every single thing I eat, strictly avoiding juices—especially soda—and forcing down green tea. Between the massages and wasting money on endless creams, massagers, foam rollers, and ice rollers... I'm done with all these "remedies."
I won't even get started on how they neglect their daily responsibilities just to obsessively train for sports every single day.

I spent a long time stubbornly obsessed with getting rid of cellulite. I was so fixated that I would have rather starved to death than touched a single potato chip or a drop of Coca-Cola.
I was a total fanatic, yet I have absolutely nothing to show for it.

I still stay active and watch what I eat, but I've stopped obsessing over cellulite. At this point, I don't even bother hoping I can reduce it, let alone get rid of it.

Look, this is just my experience—maybe someone else actually pulled it off.
I suppose that depends, at least in part, on one's physical constitution.

Look, ladies... let's be real. There isn't a single woman out there who is 100% happy with her breasts. Okay, maybe one or two are—but it’s rare.
I'm dealing with massive breasts. I’m actually quite thin—5'10" and about 138 lbs—but a huge chunk of that weight is concentrated right there.
I'm seriously considering reduction surgery. From where I'm sitting, you all are incredibly lucky.
Big breasts might look good in photos, but trust me, they are completely impractical.

It is nearly impossible for me to find a decent shirt or blazer. I can't button them up over my chest, and if I size up, everything hangs off my shoulders and looks baggy at the waist.
I can't just wear whatever I want; there's zero chance of going braless because everything just bounces everywhere.
When I work out, I have to wear an extra-strength high-impact sports bra just to stop the movement, otherwise, it actually hurts.
At the beach, if I lie on my stomach, it feels like I'm lying on two basketballs.
And don't even get me started on the stretch marks covering them.

Honestly, I would give anything to be placidseal13 instead of dealing with this.
Everything has its pros and cons.
Personally, I'd much rather see a girl with smaller breasts who can pull off a breezy summer top without a bra and not have everything swinging around.

It wasn't exactly cosmetic surgery for me, but I had a fibroadenoma removed through their plastic surgery department.
The scar is practically nonexistent. They used some kind of internal stitching technique; at first, it just looked like a tiny scratch, but now you can't even tell anything happened.
If that’s any indication of their skill, I am beyond satisfied with the "cosmetic" results.

My GP suggested I go there because, being young, I didn't want a visible scar on the side of my breast showing when I'm in a swimsuit.
But let's be clear: nothing was actually changed cosmetically. They just made sure the scar was invisible—and they are certainly good at that.

Benjamin Mitchell5 said:Oh, please, don't listen to those vultures trying to pick your pocket..."in America they say"🙄that the trash is just out to rob you blind.
I personally use the Optima Toric from Bausch & Lomb... they arrived from Italy in packs of six. A guy told me I could actually wear them for at least eight or nine months. Apparently, they used to be sold as three-month lenses, but to keep the price from spiking, they just rebranded them as monthly lenses while keeping the cost exactly the same. I paid for everything all at once $147.

You're a new lens wearer, so you can wear them without fearing complications for at least the next 10 years.
But once your eyes have been deprived of oxygen for 10 to 15 years straight, corneal issues will start showing up. You don't need to be a genius to realize that.
I learned basic eye anatomy back in elementary school, so common sense dictates that the stories about lack of oxygen aren't made up.

Harold Evans7 said:I'm feeling a little confused about something. For a few years now, I've been wearing these soft cylindrical Optima Toric lenses—from B&L, I think—and honestly, they've been the best lenses I've ever used. Because of my astigmatism, my doctor recommended these specific toric ones; they’re a bit pricier than the "standard" options, and I usually have to wait about a month for them to arrive. So, I guess my question is—where do those silicone hydrogel lenses fit into all this? Are those actually the same thing? I'm just not quite following😕

No, those aren't silicone hydrogels.
Bausch & Lomb offers Purevision Toric hydrogel silicone lenses.
They’re also pricier than the standard ones—torics always carry a premium—and you can't just grab them off the shelf since they have to be special ordered.

Lawrence Wells said:I used to wear Bausch & Lomb Optima for about a year—they were totally fine, honestly—but then I found some other brands that just felt way more comfortable, so I made the switch. Btw, it’s not even that much more expensive if you just order them from overseas sites.

True, but they're still pricier than just sticking with Optima lenses.

To looks like a fungal infection, possibly tinea corporis.
Especially considering poor hygiene and excessive sweating, which creates the perfect environment for fungi to thrive.

You need to see a doctor immediately. It’s likely contagious, and it isn't going to clear up on its own.

Richard Newman8 said:So, these Acuvue Oasys lenses—they're silicone-based, right? Hmm... If that's the case, I should probably just go ahead and order them—since I end up wearing my contacts for about 12 hours a day anyway...

I think silicone hydrogels will eventually take over, and you'll end up switching to them sooner or later anyway.
They offered them to me ages ago, but they always seemed too expensive, and I was perfectly happy with Optima.
The turning point was when an ophthalmologist pointed out actual signs of neovascularization during my exam.
At that point, I thought, "To hell with the extra $100 if my eye health is on the line."$67

Richard Newman8 said:Thanks for the reply! So, I guess he was somewhat right after all... Which means I really need to go in and check out those specific ones he's offering me... If he had just explained everything clearly from the jump, it would have been a totally different story, but as it stands... Honestly, thank goodness this forum exists...

Probably Acuvue Oasys.
Look, you have plenty of options when it comes to silicone hydrogel lenses from various brands.
Prices vary, but in the end, they all land in roughly the same ballpark.
The premium ones are significantly more expensive, especially compared to Optima.

It really boils down to how long you've been wearing contacts and your daily habits.
If you only wear them occasionally or just for a few hours a day, there's probably no urgent need to switch to silicone hydrogels.
But if you're like me—wearing them all day, from sunrise to sunset—then I'd definitely suggest making the jump.

I wore those exact lenses for years, and they were honestly the best ones I ever had.
If they’re thinking about discontinuing them, I don't think it's because there's anything wrong with the product itself. It's more likely because everyone is switching to silicone hydrogel lenses now. Those allow for much higher oxygen permeability, which makes them significantly healthier for your eyes. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this, but wearing low-oxygen soft lenses long-term—especially from sunrise to sunset—can lead to complications due to oxygen deprivation.
The cornea doesn't have blood vessels; it gets its oxygen directly from the air. Since lenses act as a barrier, the cornea starts growing blood vessels into itself just to try and get enough oxygen.
This is called corneal neovascularization, and it damages your vision by reducing the transparency of the cornea.

Just for context, Optima lenses have a Dk (Oxygen Permeability) of 8.5, whereas silicone hydrogel lenses have a Dk of over 100.

That's exactly why I switched from Optima to silicone hydrogels (Air Optix).
Specifically, those have a Dk of 110.

So, it isn't just some attempt to "upsell" you on more expensive lenses.
I’ve been wearing soft lenses for 15 years, and I've actually started seeing early signs of neovascularization myself. It's nothing serious; it clears up once the cornea starts getting sufficient oxygen.
Since it only showed up after 15 years, it suggests that oxygen deprivation isn't an immediate crisis for everyone.
However, it's highly individual and depends entirely on how your specific eyes react.

The bottom line is that the cornea needs oxygen, so your ophthalmologist definitely wasn't giving you bad advice.
Now, whether it's absolutely mandatory is a bit debatable. But it is undeniably better for your eye health.

crimsongull4 said:Here’s the situation. I wanted to get some female perspectives on this.
I searched the forums for a topic like this but came up empty. You can read just about anything online, so I figured I'd ask you all directly.
My wife and I are arguing over the link between being underweight and fertility—specifically, if it actually makes getting pregnant harder.
For example: 5'4" and 86 lbs.

What's your take?

If she’s just naturally thin—meaning she’s healthy and her cycles are regular—I don't see much reason to doubt her ability to conceive.

Weight alone doesn't dictate fertility. There is a massive difference between someone who is naturally slender and eats well versus someone struggling with an eating disorder like anorexia or bulimia.

I guess all those seasonal bugs are finally making their rounds.
No fever here, but my throat is killing me, my sinuses are running nonstop, my ears are stuffed up—which I absolutely hate—and now my stomach is acting up like the start of a nasty stomach flu.
It feels like every symptom under the sun.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Well, for me, sex isn't like that. Sex without love is completely off the table. Maybe it's because I'm a woman, or maybe I'm just a romantic, or perhaps it's simply because sex isn't one of those primal, baseline necessities for me like food or water.
So now I'm curious: are there any women here who view sex purely as a way to satisfy a physical need, or any men who require an emotional connection before they'll consider having sex with someone else?

Here's my take.
I'm currently in a long-term relationship, so casual hookups aren't really on the table right now. But back when I was single or just "between things," I've definitely had two different partners in a single night.

Look, once I'm in love, I'm loyal and don't feel the need for anything else. But if I'm solo and I want sex, I'm going to get it. Why wouldn't I?

Bottom line: sex can be just a physical necessity, or it can be much deeper. It all depends on the circumstances.

I heard about this woman who was in a car accident.
She made a full recovery, but the nerve damage left her in a constant state of sexual arousal.
The woman is hypersexual 24/7.

I know this isn't the same thing as nymphomania. I’m not sure if there’s even a known cause for nymphomania—whether it's psychological, hormonal, or something else—but I believe those women can't help it and aren't to blame.
I don't know much about nymphomania, but I know for certain that it doesn't mean she's incapable of love.

northernpanther12 said:lol, yeah, that’s exactly what I was getting at—the chance of even bumping into someone in that situation is low, and then the actual ways to catch it drop that percentage even further. But look, you see tons of teenagers doing those gross "love bites" on necks, right? Now imagine if that person happens to be CDC positive... and you've got a cut or a sore in your own mouth (and I don't just mean a bitten lip)...

Give me a break, people!
Even unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person isn't a 100% guarantee of infection, let alone these "one in a hundred million" scenarios.

Theoretically, you could scrape yourself on a thorn bush in the woods right after someone with the CDC virus did, and catch it that way.
The odds of that happening are about the same as catching the CDC from a kiss.

For that to work, you'd have to stumble upon an infected person at just the right moment, and both of you would need significant open sores in your mouths.
Besides, it’s not like every other person walking down the street is positive, nor do people typically walk around with bleeding wounds on their legs.
The CDC is transmitted through blood, not saliva.
Essentially, for a kiss to be a risk, the infected person's blood would have to enter the other person's bloodstream through a wound.
I’d say those chances are incredibly slim.

Rachel Allen57 said:I don't need food, but once I start eating—once my stomach is full—I just keep going. And going. Until I feel nauseous and want to throw up. It leaves me feeling unsatisfied and depressed. How do I deal with this? How do I stop? Any experiences?

I have a similar issue.
Once I start eating, especially if it's something I actually enjoy, I end up overeating.
For instance, I can easily polish off two massive pizza-sized bowls of pasta and then be unable to move for hours.
Luckily, I don't struggle with weight, so I don't obsess over it, but I've started avoiding eating altogether.
The issue isn't a constant craving; it's the inability to stop once I begin.
It usually ends with me having just one meal a day, which I absolutely binge on.
Then I feel so miserable for the rest of the day that I won't touch anything until the next day. It’s a cycle.
I eat once every 24 hours.

It doesn't happen every single day, but it happens too often to be healthy.

wearybison14 said:Thanks for the info.
I need to dig deeper then. My vision has been giving me real trouble lately, but apparently, everyone ignored my astigmatism during the last exam.
Everything gets blurry and it's making me nauseous.
Plus I get headaches and dizziness. I have no idea what's causing it.

The biggest issue is driving. I can't tell the difference between the shoulder and the road. Once, I thought they had widened the lane, but it was just the shoulder and I hit it because I couldn't see the height difference.

Same thing on three-lane highways. When I'm in the middle lane, it's hard to focus on the lines without drifting into another lane. That's why I went to the eye doctor, but they told me I don't need anything.🤷

So should I only be wearing glasses for the astigmatism? Without the actual prescription?

Ugh, if you're struggling that much behind the wheel, you can't just ignore it.
It might be astigmatism, but a -0.25 shouldn't cause this much trouble.
That's actually my prescription, and since I don't even wear cylinder correction in my lenses, my vision is fine.
The only thing that gets blurry for me is tiny text in the distance.
Does this happen mostly at night, or is it constant?

I don't know about your specific situation, but honestly, finding a concrete answer to that question is going to be tough.
Regarding contact lenses, you won't find an exact chemical breakdown anywhere.
With silicone hydrogel lenses, all you'll ever see is that they contain silicone fibers and water; the specific type of silicone remains a mystery.
The best you'll get are labels like balafilcon A or polymacon,which doesn't actually tell you much of anything.
I've tried to figure out the precise composition of my own lenses before, and I came up empty-handed.

As for implants, it depends on the procedure—they use various types of silicone and different additives.
Again, pinpointing the exact chemical makeup is nearly impossible.

Unless someone here is a specialist in this field who can give you a technical answer, you're out of luck.

If you are truly hunting for that specific material, maybe try looking into industrial suppliers, though I haven't the slightest clue where you'd even start.

Kenneth Fisher3 said:Most people with decent vision actually have some kind of plus prescription. A "zero" prescription is basically a myth—it would mean the length of your eyeball perfectly matches the focal point. Mathematically, that's almost impossible because there's always going to be some deviation. Just a single millimeter difference in eyeball length creates a 3-diopter shift! Almost every young person who claims they have perfect vision without glasses actually has a tiny bit of "plus" in their eyes, but it's not enough to require reading glasses or anything. Since young people have great accommodation (that ability of the eye to focus), they easily compensate for it. However, accommodation won't help you with a "minus" prescription, which is why even a -0.5 can noticeably blur your distance vision.
So, how does someone so young end up needing a small plus prescription?
Usually, it's because that plus prescription comes along with a significant cylinder or a difference in power between the two eyes. You rarely find a healthy 20-year-old who needs +0.75 in both eyes without any cylinder; if a computer scan shows +0.75, their vision would feel the same with or without glasses. The only real difference is that the glasses might let them see something sharply at 5 inches from their face instead of 5.5 inches. Basically, the glasses let them see fine details closer up, but thanks to strong accommodation, they can still see great up close without them. Near-vision issues usually don't kick in until much later when the eye's focusing power starts to fade.

I get it. Most people have minor astigmatism that doesn't really bother them.
But if she claims her vision isn't optimal, then clearly one of those factors is affecting her.

With my contacts, I see fine without cylinder (though it could be better), but when I put on my glasses which include cylinder, nothing looks sharper than the contacts—it just feels "weird," and I can't get used to it.