u/teezaytazighkigh

I actually put the "breed" in the title originally but I was warned to be drama free.

I don't hate doodles the way some groomers do. I actually really like them because ime most of them are really well-behaved. But it's BORING.

I have groomed at least one every day for weeks. Yesterday it was 2 doodles and a "cavapoo." (It was merle and had blue eyes, but okay 🙄)

When I started 20 years ago, I worked in a city in an area that bordered on a high income area, and we had a wide variety of breeds come in. Schnauzers of every size, Brussels Griffons, actual poodles that got pompoms, Airedales, I even had a Bouvier Des Flandres as a regular.

I love this job but part of the reason is the *variety.* Doing the exact same haircut on virtually identical dogs every day is BORİNG. Again, I'm not hating on the type of dog, just sad that *everyone* has one and I rarely see interesting dogs anymore.

Y'all feel this way? How do you cope with the sameness?

Has anyone used Bob's 1 to 1 to make dumpling wrappers? I used to make my own for gyoza and am having a craving, just wondered if that flour would work? Or if someone has had success with a different flour? Thanks!

I read this book pre-2000s. It was set in the late 60s, maybe early 70s, but I don't know when it was written. It's a coming of age story about a teenage girl.

Things I remember about it:

At some point she hears "Hey Mr Tambourine Man" by the Byrds and becomes obsessed with it. I think she may even save up to buy a record player just to be able to play the album?

There's some talk about how everyone except her has Madras plaid and Penny loafers.

A big part of the story line is her drifting apart from her best friend, who is very pretty. The friend ends up in a (car?) accident and her face is disfigured.

I think there's a boy who has a crush on her, but she either doesn't like him or doesn't like him at first.

Thanks in advance if anyone knows!

Hi, I tried asking this in a different sub but it got removed for diet shaming. I really just wanted a scientific answer to a hypothetical.

I was reading the other day about the possible effects of not getting enough carbohydrates. I read that the optimal amount of carbs we need is roughly half the amount of calories we consume.

Assume that you're eating exactly the amount of every food group you're supposed to, except grains. Are you better off just operating in this deficit, or making up the difference in carbohydrates from refined sugars in drinks (juice, soda, sports drinks, etc.)?

Obviously I'm aware that all that sugar is bad for you, and also that you could just eat more/more calorically dense fruits and vegetables. I'm just curious what the effects of both would be, short and long term, and which one would be more dangerous/unpleasant.

Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for any answers!

About 10 years ago I went a month without eating grains of any kind as part of a diet I was trying. During that month, digestive issues that I'd had for years completely stopped. I came to the conclusion that I was likely gluten sensitive/intolerant. For a few years I ate "gluten light". I only had gluten free pasta, flour for baking, etc, but still ate regular bread (just not often,) or would have a donut if they had them at work or something. Eventually I kind of stopped worrying about it and just ate "normally."

At the beginning of last September, I developed a skin issue on my hands that I thought was eczema. All the symptoms matched the description, even if my hands didn't quite look like the pictures. I have been struggling with it since then. It was notably terrible right after Thanksgiving - my hands were covered in painful bumps and my skin was literally cracking open in multiple places.

About 3 weeks ago, I had a terrible stomach virus. I couldn't eat for about 48 hours. The first day I could eat, I only had mashed potatoes and yogurt. It was when I was feeling better I realized that I hadn't itched the entire time I was sick, and that all my bumps were gone. My hands looked almost completely healed. I chalked it up to some weird immune system glitch, like the illness has distracted the eczema or something.

The second day I could eat, I was ready for real food but still wanted something kind of neutral to eat. So I made buttered noodles. Within hours, my hands started itching again. I did some googling and realized it was probably gluten related. I did my best to avoid it for the rest of the week.

I had a lunch planned with family the following weekend and ate pizza just like we'd planned, partially to see if I would react. Not only did I get the itchies and the bumps, I also had moderate knee pain and stiffness in both knees.

I have had mild knee pain and stiffness for a while, but I'm in my 40s so I assumed it was arthritis. Other than the pizza day, that pain has been completely gone since I started avoiding gluten.

And obviously I've had way fewer stomach aches.

So obviously I'm fairly certain I have celiac (I do carry the gene for it according to 23andme, as well.)

The biggest thing for me is that I literally feel better. Like, younger, more energetic, better mood, clearer headed. I can't imagine going back to how I felt a month ago. Which brings me to my question.

I read that the only way to get diagnosed is to eat gluten every day for 6-12 weeks, and basically trigger it to flare up, for the various tests. As much as I've always loved wheat products, the idea of intentionally putting myself into that much pain and misery on purpose sounds horrifying. Like I don't know if I could really do it?

So, I want to know - is it worth it? Are there any benefits to having an official diagnosis, or am I fine just going gf and enjoying my life? Are there disadvantages to not having a diagnosis?

TLDR: I feel so well without gluten, I don't know if it's worth making myself sick again just to get a diagnosis. Would like to know if there advantages to an official diagnosis.

Thanks!

Many many years ago, when I was still newish and working corporate, I had a woman try to come in as a walk-in while I was on my lunch. We did not have room for her that day, so I scheduled her an appointment for the next day. She later called to complain to the store manager and specifically said, "If she has time to eat, she has time to groom my dog." Because scarfing down a sandwich and grooming a cocker spaniel definitely take the same amount of time.

I ended up being the one to do the haircut, and then she complained about the way I'd done the dome. She told my manager that she was sure I'd made her dog ugly in retribution for her complaint the day before.

I promise y'all I did exactly what I had done every other time. I was also very conflict averse and a people pleaser back then, so I can tell you that if anything I would have been trying harder for a complainer than for anyone else.

But ever since then, whenever a dog is super annoying or an owner really upsets me, I always think about it. I could just do a bad job intentionally, and then maybe I'd never have to see the dog again. But I have too much pride for that (plus I'm in a smaller town so I'm very careful of my reputation.)

But I'm curious if anyone has ever done this? Or been accused of it? (Or been accused of something else crazy? My bestie once had someone tell her she must have put the worms up their dog's butt because it didn't have them before being groomed.)

I would love to hear y'all's stories!