 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / December 2004Ever the optimist, a recommittment to rigorous low carbs - and a great first week report!
Well, I had to do something before gaining back all my weight. While I believe that ultimately it is a matter of "calories in" (food) vs "calories out" (base metabolism + exercise) and while I know that a straight low-calorie diet can work (I've done it in the past) every time I try a plain low-calorie diet this past year and ignore the carbs I end up with enormous hunger cravings and digestive problems. So my idea is to start with very low carbs (under 20/day), take advantage of initial weight loss to jump start things, then as weight loss stalls start making more conscious substitutions with low calorie, low carb alternatives (like white meat chicken instead of steak). And add exercise, of course. Also, I am rigorously tracking all my carbs and calories again. That really seems to help me. Some people don't need to do this, but I do. Also, I am not guessing at carb values. I found out this is vital. If I don't have actual data I'm not eating it. I was recently shocked to find (by actually calling the manufacturer) that some sausages I liked at my local supermaket have like 15 carbs in the portion I had been eating! Similar sausages from other companies had about 1.5 carbs - one-tenth! If you are on a 20 carb/day diet these things can make a big difference. I didn't eat any "fake low carb" foods - things with sugar alcohols in them, or glycerin or whatever. I did drink lots of diet coke though, every single day. It didn't seem to hurt anything. I ate lots of cheese. But I avoided nuts because (1) they are really, really high calorie and (2) there is so much discrepancy about how many carbs are really in them or not. For vegies I had things like lettuce, cucumbers, green beans, broccoli and green peppers. I sometimes used keto-crumbs to make a fried dinner dish - but just a couple of times. I didn't eat any fruits this first week. Every morning I had the same breakfast. Monotony in the morning doesn't seem to bother me: 3 poached eggs on top of 200 gm of cottage cheese. This is just 5.6 carbs and 454 calories, and it seems to keep me full until well into the afternoon. I weighed myself every day this first week, just out of curiosity. But I will only do weekly weighings from now on. Here are the results, which anybody would be happy with! 2004.12.17 (Fri) 122.0 kg - 2662 cals, 14.2 carbs 2004.12.18 (Sat) 120.5 kg - 2447 cals, 9.2 carbs 2004.12.19 (Sun) 119.5 kg - 1665 cals, 17.3 carbs 2004.12.20 (Mon) 119.5 kg - 2193 cals, 14.5 carbs 2004.12.21 (Tue) 119.0 kg - 2160 cals, 12.8 carbs 2004.12.22 (Wed) 119.0 kg - 1353 cals, 6.2 carbs 2004.12.23 (Thu) 118.5 kg - 2176 cals, 10.3 carbs 2004.12.24 (Fri) 118.0 kg - still the morning here So that is 4 kg = almost 9 lb lost in one week! That's even better than the first time I tried low-carb! So it *is* possible to do it again. (If you have fallen off the wagon and want a good kick-start to your diet, try doing this without a lot of processed foods or fake low-carb snack food. I think you will be pleasantly surprised!) The first day I was pretty hungry. As the calories indicate, my hunger did seem to naturally settle down as the week went by. I would say most cravings stopped after 4 days. So you have to stick with it at least that long to really appreciate it. Ketostix indicate I am slightly in ketosis. The average daily calories were 2,093 and the average carbs 12.1 carbs/day. The real carbs though are probably a few grams above that because I counted everything *except* spices. But as we all know, even things like garlic powder, black pepper and mustard have carbs in them. From what I know about my body's base metabolism (about 12 calories/pound) I should be able to continue to lose weight for the time being even at this calorie figure. Of course, a single 50 gm bag of macadamias thrown in every day would blow the average up to 2500 calories/day, so I am going to continue to avoid nuts. Anyway, I continue to try. doug@on the road again website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > Well, I had to do something before gaining back all my weight. While I > believe that ultimately it is a matter of "calories in" (food) vs [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > doug@on the road again I believe the success of the low carb WOE is due to lack of hunger because fat is filling. Seems to me that doing low carb AND low fat defeats the purpose. You'll get hungry and bored eating just chicken and vegetabes. May as well do Weight Watchers. Again, this is just IMHO and YMMV of course. -- Peter 270/219/180 > I believe the success of the low carb WOE is due to lack of hunger because > fat is filling. Seems to me that doing low carb AND low fat defeats the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Peter > 270/219/180 I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes things taste better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken stir-fry won't make it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and YMMV too.  SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. || In article <ylPyd.2285$Tf5.2223@lakeread03>, "marengo" <marengo@ || cox.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] || stir-fry won't make it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and || YMMV too. That's my feeling (and experience) about it. The research says protein helps reduce appetite much more than fat, BTW. Actually, I think it is the combination of protein and fat that works best. In news:332rdaF3rugbeU1@individual.net, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> stated ||| I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes ||| things taste better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | That's my feeling (and experience) about it. The research says | protein helps reduce appetite much more than fat, BTW. ... > || I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes > || things taste better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken > || stir-fry won't make it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and > || YMMV too. > That's my feeling (and experience) about it. The research says protein > helps reduce appetite much more than fat, BTW. That's been my experience as well. I have never felt I needed to watch how much (lean) protein I ate but I knew weight loss would slow if I was eating too much fat. Early on I was on this whipped cream for dessert thing and it definitely slowed me down. I think if you ARE burning fat but taking in too much dietary fat, your body will burn the easy fat instead of body fat. I do think that fat in moderation helps makes a meal more filling and let you feel fuller longer because it slows digestion. Dan 325/192/190 ^ can he do it? Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > Early on I was on this whipped cream for dessert > thing and it definitely slowed me down. I think if you ARE burning fat > but taking in too much dietary fat, your body will burn the easy fat > instead of body fat. Where exactly does this "easy fat" reside? Viscerally? In your big toe? > > Early on I was on this whipped cream for dessert > > thing and it definitely slowed me down. I think if you ARE burning fat > > but taking in too much dietary fat, your body will burn the easy fat > > instead of body fat. > Where exactly does this "easy fat" reside? Viscerally? In your big toe? See above. Duh-ietary fat. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes >>> Early on I was on this whipped cream for dessert >>> thing and it definitely slowed me down. I think if you ARE burning fat >>> but taking in too much dietary fat, your body will burn the easy fat >>> instead of body fat. >> Where exactly does this "easy fat" reside? Viscerally? In your big toe? > See above. Duh-ietary fat. Let's try this again. Where exactly does this "easy fat" reside? Viscerally? In your big toe? Exactly where in the body is this "easy fat" vs body fat? Lying in your stomach yet to be metabolized? > I believe the success of the low carb WOE is due to lack of hunger because > fat is filling. Seems to me that doing low carb AND low fat defeats the > purpose. You'll get hungry and bored eating just chicken and vegetabes. > May as well do Weight Watchers. Spell check the last paragraph on your website Home page. > Well, I had to do something before gaining back all my weight. While I > believe that ultimately it is a matter of "calories in" (food) vs [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > doug@on the road again I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss. Tom 210/180/180 > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are > what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss. > Tom Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in the past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias. You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages here at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package! This goes back to my basic idea that the only thing that low-carb dieting really does is help control your appetite. So any lower calorie substitutions you can make while low-carbing helps. If I had one pack of macadamias every day as an extra snack I would still be well within my 20 carb/day limit. But over one month, those extra 358 calories would hurt weight loss to the tune of about 3 lb. That's 36 lb a year. Another way of looking at it, that daily package of macadamia nuts could reverse the weight loss effect of an hour of daily exercise! That's why I'm trying to eat more fish, chicken and even lean pork (not so bad in calories!) instead of beef, which is a real calorie buster. Another thing about nuts, but the way... there seems to be a lot of discrepancy about the actual carbs in nuts. I've seen figures that vary by a factor of 4 or 5! So if you are a "true carb theorist" and really believe that ONLY carbs count and calories don't, the problem *might* be that that there happen to be more net carbs in nuts than we usually like to believe. doug > > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things > > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has > a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package! I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts. Seriously. They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be filling, but they aren't. I've tried all different kinds of nuts, and once I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop eating them. Just like popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk food. I wonder if it's one of those things where a mild allergy or food intolerance can cause cravings. Although this article I found here: http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/health_food_addiction.html does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. || In article <cqle75$2nf1$1@news.jaipa.or.jp>, Doug Lerner || <doug@lerner.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] || They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be || filling, but they aren't. Consider a cup of roasted almonds. By far, the largest percentage of calories come from fat, not protein. fat: 82% protein: 14% numbers rounded. So, they really don't provide much protein and hence you don't get much appetite suppression there. And fat tastes good. Nuts taste good which is why I think I tend to overeat them (unroasted, roasted, salted, unsalted - don't matter). I've tried all different kinds of nuts, || and once || I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop eating them. Just || like popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk food. Same here. || I wonder if it's one of those things where a mild allergy or food || intolerance can cause cravings. Although this article I found here: || || http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/health_food_addiction.html || || does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should. I do wonder if nuts are an ideal food for mankind today. But consider this: without technology, nuts would be much, much harder to overeat! So the problem likely stems from the fact that today one can buy nuts in much larger quantities for them to remain in our diets (given human nature and desires of the flesh, etc.) || -- || Michelle Levin || http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick || || I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 || flaws. > I've tried all different kinds of nuts, > || and once > || I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop eating them. Just > || like popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk food. > Same here. > || I wonder if it's one of those things where a mild allergy or food > || intolerance can cause cravings. Although this article I found here: > || > || http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/health_food_addiction.html > || > || does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should. > I do wonder if nuts are an ideal food for mankind today. But consider this: > without technology, nuts would be much, much harder to overeat! So the > problem likely stems from the fact that today one can buy nuts in much > larger quantities for them to remain in our diets (given human nature and > desires of the flesh, etc.) Yeah, good point. For instance, I doubt we could overeat walnuts -- even if we were able to pick them off the ground instead of climbing the tree for them -- if we had to pry them out of their messy husks and then their shells. It would probably be like what they say about celery - you burn up the calories you ingest just processing it. I also find nuts far too tempting. For that reason, I always measure out a serving into a bowl (or baggie, for trips) instead of eating out of the jar or can. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait a few minutes for the satiation to kick in. The problem is if you eat until you are full, there is a lag between eating and feeling full. In news:lunachick-352C76.23311325122004@news1.east.earthlink.net, Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> stated | I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts. | Seriously. They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should. > Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a > few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait a > few minutes for the satiation to kick in. The problem is if you eat until > you are full, there is a lag between eating and feeling full. Yep...I pay extra money to buy my peanuts in 1 oz snack packs (in boxes of 48 at Costco). It's much easier to limit myself to 1 1 oz bag a day than it is to measure out a small handful and not go back for more. SignatureAF "Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team." --artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball >Yep...I pay extra money to buy my peanuts in 1 oz snack packs (in boxes >of 48 at Costco). It's much easier to limit myself to 1 1 oz bag a day >than it is to measure out a small handful and not go back for more. Thats a good idea; lc I'm seeing is about replacing your old habits from youth and replacing them with habits you know are good for you... JD > Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a > few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait a > few minutes for the satiation to kick in. The problem is if you eat until > you are full, there is a lag between eating and feeling full. Nuts (soy, almonds mainly) constitute much of the food I eat daily. I eat a hndful, maybe two, then I stop. Do I want more nuts? Of course. Am I a big boy? Yes. Do I eat more nuts? No. Life is full of difficult choices. Food shouldn't be one of them. If it is, take a look at your life and your chosen priorities. >> Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a >> few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Life is full of difficult choices. Food shouldn't be one of them. Don't you weigh them out to make sure you eat less than two pounds? > Don't you weigh them out to make sure you eat less than two pounds? I know you were being sarcastic, but thought it would be amusing to calculate the effects of eating two pounds of macadamias a day. That would be 6,508 calories/day, assuming that is all you ate. With a normal base metabolism of 12 calories/lb I would expect a person eventually gain until they weighed 542 lbs. I bet you'd get tired of macadamias long before then though. doug > thought it would be amusing to > calculate the effects of eating two pounds of macadamias a day. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With a normal base metabolism of 12 calories/lb I would expect a person > eventually gain until they weighed 542 lbs. Or more. > I bet you'd get tired of macadamias long before then though. > > doug Good chance. MOF, a 100% chance. > Life is full of difficult choices. Food shouldn't be one of them. > If it is, take a look at your life and your chosen priorities. What could be more difficult than food? What can be harder than saying here is one your main paths to pleasure and then saying control it? Your life doesn't need to suck nor do your priorities have to be out-of-whack to overeat. >> Life is full of difficult choices. Food shouldn't be one of them. >> If it is, take a look at your life and your chosen priorities. > What could be more difficult than food? What can be harder than > saying here is one your main paths to pleasure and then saying > control it? Your life doesn't need to suck nor do your priorities > have to be out-of-whack to overeat. MOF, your priorities have to be out of whack to eat to obesity. If your priorities are out of whack, your life sucks. Whether you know it or not. I watched an a show last night, parts of it, family gets brand new house, mother is dead, morbidly obese father and several close-to-morbidly obese teenage daughters. Yes, they are all cheery and lovey-dovey and Daddy has a very good chance of orphaning his family and has already started all the females down the road of ill health through obesity. His/their priorities are out of whack and they will learn, probably too late in time, that they're lives truly suck. When you play with your health, and it turns on you, whether you know it or not, you will soon find nothing else really matters, not the house, the cars, the wealth or the food that you loved to your carnally induced, premature death. > >> Life is full of difficult choices. Food shouldn't be one of them. > >> If it is, take a look at your life and your chosen priorities. > > MOF, your priorities have to be out of whack to eat to obesity. If your > priorities are out of whack, your life sucks. troll > > Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a > > few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nuts (soy, almonds mainly) constitute much of the food I eat daily. I eat a > hndful, maybe two, then I stop. Apparently MU the diet genius doesn't know that soybeans are not nuts, but in fact legumes. And it's sure hard to fathom how a handful or two of nuts could constitute much of the food one eats daily on any reasonable diet. Do I want more nuts? Of course. Am I a big boy? Yes. Do I eat more nuts? > No. > > Life is full of difficult choices. Food shouldn't be one of them. > > If it is, take a look at your life and your chosen priorities. > Apparently MU the diet genius doesn't know that soybeans are not nuts, http://www.genisoy.com/products/soynuts.aspx > And it's sure hard to fathom how a handful or two > of nuts could constitute much of the food one eats daily on any > reasonable diet. Fathoming is difficult for you. So is reading comprehension and nutology. Life must be a real drag when you view it from such an elementary POV. > Fathoming is difficult for you. So is reading comprehension and nutology. > Life must be a real drag when you view it from such an elementary POV. Troll > > Apparently MU the diet genius doesn't know that soybeans are not nuts, > > http://www.genisoy.com/products/soynuts.aspx Just because the marketing department calls their product "Soy Nuts" does not make it so, MU. Here's the definition of "nuts": 1) An indehiscent, hard-shelled, one-loculated, one-seeded fruit, such as an acorn or hazelnut. 2) A seed borne within a fruit having a hard shell, as in the peanut, almond, or walnut. 3) The kernel of any of these. As previously pointed out, soy "beans" are legumes, not nuts. Thanks for playing...better luck next time. GG > > And it's sure hard to fathom how a handful or two > > of nuts could constitute much of the food one eats daily on any > > reasonable diet. > > Fathoming is difficult for you. So is reading comprehension and nutology. fyi - My dictionary search came up empty for "nutology". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nutology Are you making up words again? > Life must be a real drag when you view it from such an elementary POV. > Just because the marketing department calls their product "Soy Nuts" does > not make it so, MU. Here's the definition of "nuts": Here's one for you, Shill. "Do one's nuts over" <following Mu around Usenet> means become infatuated with <following Mu around Usenet > > Just because the marketing department calls their product "Soy Nuts" does > > not make it so, MU. Here's the definition of "nuts": [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > become infatuated with <following Mu around Usenet> LOL - I would not have been aware of this thread if you hadn't cross-posted your reply to sci.med.cardiology. BTW - don't be embarrassed about thinking that "Soy Nuts" are nuts...it's a common misconception (although, one who holds himself out as a "trainer" should be expected to know the difference). SignatureGG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary >> > Just because the marketing department calls their product "Soy Nuts" > does [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > common misconception (although, one who holds himself out as a "trainer" > should be expected to know the difference). They sell junk food named "corn nuts" around here. I wonder if that would make anyone believe that corn grows on trees. Signature223/172.4/180 > >> > Just because the marketing department calls their product "Soy Nuts" > > does [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I wonder if that would make anyone believe that corn grows on trees. Good one...you can also buy "Beer Nuts"...wonder if MU thinks beer = nuts? GG > > > Apparently MU the diet genius doesn't know that soybeans are not nuts, > > > > http://www.genisoy.com/products/soynuts.aspx > Just because the marketing department calls their product "Soy Nuts" does > not make it so, MU. Here's the definition of "nuts": > 1) An indehiscent, hard-shelled, one-loculated, one-seeded fruit, such as an > acorn or hazelnut. > 2) A seed borne within a fruit having a hard shell, as in the peanut, > almond, or walnut. > 3) The kernel of any of these. > As previously pointed out, soy "beans" are legumes, not nuts. Thanks for > playing...better luck next time. And the pea-nut is also a legume. This doesn't make much of a point, it only demonstrates the problem when you put common usage (as in #2) up against botanical definitions. The tomato is a fruit that's called a vegetable because it was ruled a vegetable. A toasted soybean is a legume that's called a nut just because it's salty and crunchy. Corn nuts, ditto. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes >> As previously pointed out, soy "beans" are legumes, not nuts. Thanks for >> playing...better luck next time. > And the pea-nut is also a legume. This doesn't make much of a point, GaryG, it > only demonstrates the problem when you put common usage (as in #2) up > against botanical definitions. The tomato is a fruit that's called a > vegetable because it was ruled a vegetable. A toasted soybean is a legume > that's called a nut just because it's salty and crunchy. Corn nuts, > ditto. GaryG is not interested in much of anything unless a) he can sell you his garbage program or b) he can pick at inane and irrelevant to discussion non issues to demonstrate his point(ed) head. > > > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things > > > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be > filling, but they aren't. you mean they aren't for *you.* they are for me. there's nothing "wrong" with nuts. they don't work for you? don't eat them. try putting the blame where it actually belongs. > > > > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little > > > > things [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > there's nothing "wrong" with nuts. they don't work for you? don't eat > them. try putting the blame where it actually belongs. Of course I meant they aren't satisfying for me. And a whole bunch of other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently mentioned here. If a food causes a negative chemical reaction in a whole bunch of people, then yes I would say there is something wrong with that food. I'm sure as hell not going to blame myself for having cravings, since they aren't a moral failing, they're a sign of a chemical problem caused by a particular food. Going by your logic, if you get sick from some spoiled or undercooked food, don't dare say there's something wrong with that food. It's your fault for not being able to handle it, ok? SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. But isn't limiting the amount a problem with anything that is really tasty and easy to eat? Nuts are almost a perfect food, nutritious, no preparation necessary, keep without refrigeration, taste good, endorsed by squirrels. In news:lunachick-6DBA34.11390126122004@news1.east.earthlink.net, Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> stated | Of course I meant they aren't satisfying for me. And a whole bunch | of other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | food, don't dare say there's something wrong with that food. It's | your fault for not being able to handle it, ok? || But isn't limiting the amount a problem with anything that is really || tasty and easy to eat? Nuts are almost a perfect food, nutritious, || no preparation necessary, keep without refrigeration, taste good, || endorsed by squirrels. That's why I can't control myself with nuts....so this is a failure in me.... I admit it: I'm not perfect. I like to eat. || In news:lunachick-6DBA34.11390126122004@news1.east.earthlink.net, || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> stated [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] ||| food. It's ||| your fault for not being able to handle it, ok? > I admit it: I'm not perfect. I like to eat. there's nothing wrong with liking to eat. I've found, for me, it's not a problem with most low-carb foods. Hard boiled eggs (which I do up ahead of time) and cheese are slightly less convenient in that they need to be refrigerated, but 90% of my eating is done at home anyway, so in practice those foods are just as convenient as nuts. I'm not talking here about wanting to eat more of a food because it's tasty. I think we all know the difference between "I really like this food" and "I just can't stop eating this." There is some scientific basis for a biochemical reaction being responsible for the feeling of "I just can't stop eating this" which is part of the reason, imo, that low-carb works. When you stop eating the foods that cause this negative reaction, it is easier to control the appetite. Of course it's not true for everyone. Some people can eat a normal serving of carby foods and feel satisfied. Same thing with nuts. But with more and more people getting fatter and fatter on high-carb diets, I think it's safe to say that sugars and starches are "problem foods" for many people. Not just because they like them, but because they cause a physical reaction that causes cravings and dampens the feeling of fullness. I just wonder if there is something in nuts that does the same thing. > But isn't limiting the amount a problem with anything that is really tasty > and easy to eat? Nuts are almost a perfect food, nutritious, no preparation [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > | food, don't dare say there's something wrong with that food. It's > | your fault for not being able to handle it, ok? SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > I've found, for me, it's not a problem with most low-carb foods. Hard > boiled eggs (which I do up ahead of time) and cheese are slightly less [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that causes cravings and dampens the feeling of fullness. I just wonder if > there is something in nuts that does the same thing. I think so. And I think that thing might very well be carbs! Seriously - there are huge discrepancies in carb listing for nuts on packages and in reference books and sites. I think it might just well be that nuts simply have more carbs that we would like to think. You mention eggs and cheese. I find both filling myself. I bought a 100 bag of some "aged for 18 months" French cheese chunks yesterday. Very delicious! I sat down with the bag in the evening and started munching away as a snack. And I was full before I was half-way through the bag and put the rest away for another day. I know I would have finished it if it were a bag of macadamias. But the cheese was more filling, had less calories and less carbs than the macadamias. Yes, I know, everybody is different. I too am just reporting my own experience. I think nuts are a diet breaker. doug > I bought a 100 > bag of some "aged for 18 months" French cheese chunks yesterday. Very > delicious! Yummy yum yum yummykins !!! :)))) >I sat down with the bag The whole bag? Yummy ym yummy yumm yummmm Eat em up eat em up > in the evening and started munching > away as a snack. And I was full before I was half-way through the bag.. Incredible. Only half way through. 50 chunks of cheese. > and put the rest away for another day. Lucky you. > Lucky you. troll > > Lucky you. > > > troll Those of us who have been in this group a while have each decided what we think of Mu and his friends. If you think he's a troll, just killfile him and be done with (but be prepared to tune your filters as he morphs). Following up to each of his posts to tell us what we already know contributes nothing to the signal-to-noise ratio in an already very noisy group. SignatureAF "Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team." --artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball >> I bought a 100 >>bag of some "aged for 18 months" French cheese chunks yesterday. Very [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Incredible. Only half way through. 50 chunks of cheese. Not 50 chunks - 50 grams. doug > > >>and put the rest away for another day. > > Lucky you. > Some people can eat a normal serving > of carby foods and feel satisfied. I'd say satiety is overrated and hunger is feared for no good reason. Why is it one must be always satiated? Apply that logic to sex. A "good" male lover usually has the quality of orgasmic control. He learns to put off his "satiety" for the sake of his female lover. Sometimes there is no orgasm at all. Is he denied or somehow his experience cheapened b/c he wasn't satiated? Only if he is self-involved and egocentric. Or maybe satiety wasn't what he was after. It wasn't entirely necessary. It wasn't part of his plan. When I counsel dieters I always ask one thing. Are you ready to be hungry on occasion....and not eat? I look right into their eyes and read the reaction. It will tell me all I need to know about that person's reality check on living a *life* of proper weight and health. > > Some people can eat a normal serving > > of carby foods and feel satisfied. > I'd say satiety is overrated and hunger is feared for no good reason. Jeezo, I actually agree with this. With the proviso, of course, that one lives a life of plenty and hunger isn't an actual danger signal. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > But isn't limiting the amount a problem with anything that is really tasty > and easy to eat? Nuts are almost a perfect food, nutritious, no preparation > necessary, keep without refrigeration, taste good, endorsed by squirrels. nuts are an excellent food. > > > > > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the > > > > > little things that may cause problems for you. All these small [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently mentioned > here. yeah, by people who have or have had trouble controlling their food intake in general. nuts are not the problem. > If a food causes a negative chemical reaction in a whole bunch of people, > then yes I would say there is something wrong with that food. I'm sure as > hell not going to blame myself for having cravings, since they aren't a > moral failing, they're a sign of a chemical problem caused by a particular > food. overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" > overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" In some cases, an extreme craving is the result of physiological processes, yes. A craving for a particular food is one symptom of an allergy, for example. Extreme blood sugar swings also can cause food cravings. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" > > In some cases, an extreme craving is the result of physiological processes, > yes. A craving for a particular food is one symptom of an allergy, for > example. Extreme blood sugar swings also can cause food cravings. in most cases, people have difficulty exercising control because it's so much easier not to. > > > overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in most cases, people have difficulty exercising control because it's so > much easier not to. In some cases, people have difficulty exercising control because the chemical reaction in the body and mind that tells a person when to stop eating doesn't work. Some foods interfere with this process and trigger cravings to overeat. If it were just a moral failing, simple gluttony, then we would overeat all foods indiscriminately. If it were just a matter of will, then low-carb would never work, because we'd just overeat low-carb foods. If everything is working properly, there is no need to exercise control because you stop eating when you've had enough for your body's needs. Low-carb is a tool to get the hunger signals to start working properly again, by eliminating a lot of the foods that screw up those signals. I am of the opinion that for many people, nuts mess with those signals, even in people who are perfectly capable of controlling themselves. I'm not talking about whether or not a person is strong enough to overcome the cravings. What I'm saying is that the fact that the cravings are there at all may mean there is something chemical in nuts that causes a negative or undesirable physical reaction in the body. Low-carb has taught me that any food that I feel the need to exercise control around is not a food I should be eating at all, no matter how good or bad I am at exercising that control. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > > > overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > eating doesn't work. Some foods interfere with this process and trigger > cravings to overeat. you're grasping at straws. it's possible, but the simplest explanation is the most likely. >> > > > overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" >> > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you're grasping at straws. it's possible, but the simplest explanation > is the most likely. Occam's Razor. > >> > > > overeating is a "negative chemical reaction?" > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Occam's Razor. yeah. people love to make excuses, but they never want to look at the bottom line or the big picture or [add your favorite cliche here]. it's sad. > yeah. people love to make excuses, but they never want to look at the > bottom line or the big picture or [add your favorite cliche here]. it's > sad. What the f.ck? Make excuses? You're so fired up to attack anyone you perceive as "making excuses" that you're starting to see demons that aren't even there. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this: If Jack has a strong, addiction-like urge to overeat certain foods but not others, it is almost certainly NOT because there is something wrong with Jack's ability to control himself. After all, Jack can control himself perfectly well around all the other foods out there, and Jack has no problem saying "No thank you" to his problem foods. It is only when he actually eats some of them that the strong cravings appear. By eliminating those foods from his diet, Jack no longer has to struggle to keep from overeating, he actually feels satisfied with normal portions. So, what is more useful for Jack? To sit around and beat himself up and bemoan his lack of willpower when it comes to certain foods, or to look at it objectively and rationally and realize that the foods ARE causing the problem and he shouldn't eat them? You and JC would have us all labeled as weak, as failed human beings, because cravings are caused by a biochemical reaction beyond the control of the individual. I never said this is an excuse to overeat, it is quite possible to butch up and muscle through cravings. It's also beyond stupid to realize that certain foods trigger these cravings, yet to keep eating them anyway. Life will be a lot easier for you once you stop insisting on failing to recognize my genius. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > yeah. people love to make excuses, but they never want to look at the > > bottom line or the big picture or [add your favorite cliche here]. it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perceive as "making excuses" that you're starting to see demons that aren't > even there. i think you're overreacting just a bit. > i think you're overreacting just a bit. Noted. And? Oh, you snipped the actual _point_, chose not to respond to it, and instead commented on my emotional state. Is it because you had no argument against my point, because you know I'm right? SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > i think you're overreacting just a bit. > > Noted. And? Oh, you snipped the actual _point_, chose not to respond to > it, and instead commented on my emotional state. Is it because you had no > argument against my point, because you know I'm right? you're not right. it doesn't matter *why* we overeat a certain food. the solution to not overeating it, in every single case, is to exercise control over the situation. whether exercising said control means limiting portions or simply not eating the food in question, the responsibility for its execution lies entirely with the consumer. || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: || [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] || portions or simply not eating the food in question, the || responsibility for its execution lies entirely with the consumer. I'm not sure you two are in any disagreement. Seems like you're "talking" passed each other. > || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: > || [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I'm not sure you two are in any disagreement. Seems like you're "talking" > passed each other. Michelle wants there to be lots of pretty excuses for the *why*. i think they're bullshit. > > || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: > > || [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Michelle wants there to be lots of pretty excuses for the *why*. i > think they're bullshit. Not even close to what I want. I want you to realize that you're not morally superior to me just because you don't get cravings from eating nuts, they just react differently in my body than they do in yours. I'm not going to agree with you and say that because nuts cause addiction-like cravings in me that there's something wrong with me, that I lack self-control or willpower or whatever, because I know it's a chemical problem with the nuts, not a problem with my self-control. And I'm not making excuses, I don't think I need to make excuses not to eat nuts, I don't _have_ to eat them to be healthy or lose weight. If you want to say I'm making excuses, then everyone here who follows a low-carb plan is making excuses. They know that carbs trigger overeating, so they limit the carbs. So, they're making excuses for not eating carbs, right? Just like you say I'm making excuses for not eating nuts. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > > || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: > > > || [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > you don't get cravings from eating nuts, they just react differently in my > body than they do in yours. i never said i was morally superior to anyone. that's your imagination working overtime. > i never said i was morally superior to anyone. that's your imagination > working overtime. Not imagination. Inferrence and interpretation based on several things you said. There are explicit and implicit meanings in what people say. For instance, if you asked me "Do these pants make my butt look big?" and I said "Don't blame it on the pants," I never actually said your butt looks big, but I implied it. Anyway, here's what you said and how I interpreted it. My interepretations may be wrong, sure, but I don't think they're unreasonable. Q: there's nothing "wrong" with nuts. they don't work for you? don't eat them. try putting the blame where it actually belongs. Interpretation: "Blame" is for someone who has done something wrong. What have I done wrong? Been born with the wrong body chemistry? For that I should blame myself? I used to think I just had a problem with nuts because I liked them. But when I discovered I had the same problem with varieties of nuts that I actually don't even like very much, and when I discovered on this group that I'm not the only one with this problem, only then did I start to think there may be something in nuts that causes an addiction-like response. Me: Of course I meant they aren't satisfying for me. And a whole bunch of other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently mentioned here. Q: yeah, by people who have or have had trouble controlling their food intake in general. nuts are not the problem. Interpretation: So, you don't seem to think there's anything in the chemical makeup of nuts that would lead to cravings, and since they aren't a problem for you, I'm just a "person who has or has had trouble controlling their food intake in general" which is PC terminology for a mentally weak glutton. Q: in most cases, people have difficulty exercising control because it's so much easier not to. Interpretation: Cravings have nothing to do with biology, those people are just lazy. Q: yeah. people love to make excuses, but they never want to look at the bottom line or the big picture or [add your favorite cliche here]. it's sad. Interpretation: "people" "they" "it's sad" This paints a picture of you standing outside the rest of the human race, having discovered truths that "they" don't know, commenting on and judging "them" like you aren't a part of it all, like you are superior. Which, all in all, is the flavor of almost all of your posts here. No sharing of your own struggles or triumphs, standing behind a wall of privacy from which you make wry, sarcastic, judgmental comments on others. Not saying you shouldn't do it, post however the hell you want. It _does_ however, make you come off as someone who sees herself as superior to the group in general. It is not my imagination. You don't have to come out and say "I see myself as superior to the rest of you" any more than I need to come out and say "I'm an emotional basket case who overanalyses everything." Doesn't need to be said, it's pretty obvious. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > It is not my imagination. You don't have to come out and say "I see > myself as superior to the rest of you" any more than I need to come out > and say "I'm an emotional basket case who overanalyses everything." > Doesn't need to be said, it's pretty obvious. i disagree, and since i know myself infinitely better than you do, i'm gonna continue to take my word for it over yours. > > It is not my imagination. You don't have to come out and say "I see > > myself as superior to the rest of you" any more than I need to come out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ok, I'll take your word for it that you really don't see yourself as superior. So why do you act like you do? Just for sh.ts and giggles? SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. It's hard to be humble when you're perfect. In news:lunachick-4A566D.18392628122004@news1.east.earthlink.net, Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> stated | Ok, I'll take your word for it that you really don't see yourself as | superior. So why do you act like you do? Just for sh.ts and giggles? > > > It is not my imagination. You don't have to come out and say "I see > > > myself as superior to the rest of you" any more than I need to come out [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ok, I'll take your word for it that you really don't see yourself as > superior. So why do you act like you do? Just for sh.ts and giggles? hasn't anyone ever told you that it's rude to ask personal questions? > > > > It is not my imagination. You don't have to come out and say "I see > > > > myself as superior to the rest of you" any more than I need to come out [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > hasn't anyone ever told you that it's rude to ask personal questions? heh, yer so cute SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > hasn't anyone ever told you that it's rude to ask personal questions? Sure have. I told them it was rude for them correcting Mu. > > i never said i was morally superior to anyone. that's your imagination > > working overtime. > Not imagination. Inferrence and interpretation based on several things you > said. > There are explicit and implicit meanings in what people say. For instance, > if you asked me "Do these pants make my butt look big?" and I said "Don't > blame it on the pants," I never actually said your butt looks big, but I > implied it. I love it. Instant divorce! While we're at it, don't blame it on the bossa nova! Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > > || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: > > || [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm not sure you two are in any disagreement. Seems like you're "talking" > > passed each other. > Michelle wants there to be lots of pretty excuses for the *why*. i > think they're bullshit. Willpower or 'exercising control' isn't either/or. It's not something you either have or don't have. Some things take a lot more willpower and determination than others. Psychological, physical, medical -- there are many reasons -- not excuses -- that can make any change harder to initiate and sustain whether it's deeply ingrained by habit or due to an addiction. It's up to the individual to be honest with themselves about what's a reason and what's an excuse. Sitting in judgement over others on such matters is uncharitable at best and simply mean-spirited at worst. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > || Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: > || [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I'm not sure you two are in any disagreement. Seems like you're "talking" > passed each other. past? > > > i think you're overreacting just a bit. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > simply not eating the food in question, the responsibility for its > execution lies entirely with the consumer. Sure. We agree on that point. I think what got my goat was your statement to put the "blame" where it belongs. Where we disagree is that I don't see it as a matter of "blame" and in fact I think viewing it that way creates problems for the individual and society as a whole. I _should_ blame myself for eating too much of any given food. I should not however, blame myself for having food cravings, unless I knowingly eat something that causes those cravings. Addiction-like cravings for a food are not a matter of choice, or willpower, or blame, but are a matter of biology. Choice and blame are only associated with what is done about the cravings, not in having the cravings in the first place. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > > > i think you're overreacting just a bit. > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > biology. Choice and blame are only associated with what is done about the > cravings, not in having the cravings in the first place. "addiction=like food cravings" are an excuse. i have no problem conceding that they might be actual, valid, biological reality for a very small percentage of people, but i think that most people are just stupid and lazy and that coming up with more excuses for them to use is counterproductive to say the least. food doesn't automagically appear in anyone's mouth and force them to chow down upon it. as individuals we have the sole responsibility to decide what we're going to eat, however hard the choice may be to make, and therefore we must always accept the responsibility for having made it. food can't take the blame for that decision, no matter how badly we want it to. > "addiction=like food cravings" are an excuse. i have no problem > conceding that they might be actual, valid, biological reality for a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it. food can't take the blame for that decision, no matter how badly we > want it to. I think you've been very lucky in life. Cravings are real, and sometimes they are overwhelming. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.7/<6 Weight 95/80/72Kg 1g Metformin, 75ug Thyroxine T2 DX 05/2004 At which point exactly, do they become overwhelming? SignatureYou take stupid to a new level. -- MFW >> "addiction=like food cravings" are an excuse. i have no problem >> conceding that they might be actual, valid, biological reality for a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nicky. > > "addiction=like food cravings" are an excuse. i have no problem > > conceding that they might be actual, valid, biological reality for a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think you've been very lucky in life. Cravings are real, and sometimes > they are overwhelming. i don't believe i ever said that they weren't, or that i never have them. how would i be able to identify the different kinds of bullshit people use to rationalize their bad behavior if i hadn't experienced it myself? i'm not lucky - i'm smart and i'm willing to work hard. and i don't cut myself any more slack than i do the rest of the world. > i don't believe i ever said that they weren't, or that i never have > them. how would i be able to identify the different kinds of bullshit > people use to rationalize their bad behavior if i hadn't experienced it > myself? i'm not lucky - i'm smart and i'm willing to work hard. and i > don't cut myself any more slack than i do the rest of the world. Did you achieve this level of control by ridiculing yourself and haranguing yourself? Glad if that worked for you, but it certainly sounds like an unsavory and unpleasant path to self-improvement. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes :.................... but i think that most people are just : stupid and lazy and that coming up with more excuses for them to use is : counterproductive to say the least. well, you haven't changed a bit! <PLONK That was counterproductive to say the least. SignatureYou take stupid to a new level. -- MFW > :.................... but i think that most people are just > : stupid and lazy and that coming up with more excuses for them to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > well, you haven't changed a bit! > <PLONK || Life will be a lot easier for you once you stop insisting on failing || to recognize my genius. :) > >> In some cases, people have difficulty exercising control because the > >> chemical reaction in the body and mind that tells a person when to stop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > you're grasping at straws. it's possible, but the simplest explanation > > is the most likely. > Occam's Razor. Where I hold that what applies here is Occam's Ronco Dial-O-Matic, which says that you can cut it any way you want, it still comes out the other end. Dan 325/192/190 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > In some cases, people have difficulty exercising control because the > chemical reaction in the body and mind that tells a person when to stop > eating doesn't work. What do they need that for? Did all the mirrors in the world suddenly disappear? Obese ppl don't realize they are obese? Let's see, "I'm 50 pounds overfat and I just finished off a box of Krispy Kremes. Damn. I wonder why my eating control mechanism didn't kick in? I wonder if it is because I have allowed myself to overextend my stomach so often it doesn't work anymore. Maybe I have built in my own new set of "satiety" that is, eat until I (nearly) puke. It's not my fault, my ancestors were Romans." > > In some cases, people have difficulty exercising control because the > > chemical reaction in the body and mind that tells a person when to stop > > eating doesn't work. > > What do they need that for? Did all the mirrors in the world suddenly > disappear? Obese ppl don't realize they are obese? Oh, look, you're helping make my point. Why DO people keep overeating when they are fat and they've already eaten enough? Because they're hungry, duh. But, but!! Hunger is supposed to be your body's signal that you need energy and nutrients! These people already have an abundance of stored energy, so why in the world would they feel hunger??!!! Simple: because the signal system is screwed up. The mind _knows_ that the body doesn't need more food, but the body keeps saying "feed me" anyway. If the body says "feed me!" especially loudly after eating specific foods, then it is pretty obvious that those foods are what is messing with the signal. I can't believe this concept is so hard to grasp on a low-carb group, since it's the whole and entirety of WHY low-carb works in the first place. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. >> What do they need that for? Did all the mirrors in the world suddenly >> disappear? Obese ppl don't realize they are obese? > Oh, look, you're helping make my point. Why DO people keep overeating when > they are fat and they've already eaten enough? > > Because they're hungry, duh. Ppl continue to eat for many reasons hunger being one of them. It's not a good enough excuse. It's no excuse at all. duh. As you know, hunger and 20 minutes once even a little food is consumed = no hunger. The reason most ppl continue to overeat is because they like to. Plain and simple. They are in love with food, the chewing, the swallowing, the "feel good", the whole pleasure trip. They eat when they are not hungry. They eat more when they feel stuffed. They eat for the pleasure of it since food is abundant and cheap. Kick food prices through the ceiling, drop food to rationing levels, guess what. Ppl will attempt to switch to a new pleasure. When you start to attack the pleasurability issue, you get at the root of the problem. The fundamental carnality and imperfection of Man. Gluttony is a sin for a reason, Luna. > But, but!! Hunger is supposed to be your > body's signal that you need energy and nutrients! These people already > have an abundance of stored energy, so why in the world would they feel > hunger??!!! Hunger has little relation to signaling energy needs or nutrient needs. Your body lies to you. It is carnal, it is a failing mechanism that has been manipulated in more ways than you can imagine. You don't even realize the manipulation which, buy definition, is he best way to induce behaviors. > Simple: because the signal system is screwed up. The mind _knows_ that the > body doesn't need more food, but the body keeps saying "feed me" anyway. Then don't rely on a screwed up system. Which is *my* point. Hunger does not equate to need to eat. Simple logic and understanding, which is why the 2 PDiet makes so much sense, is all you need. All this BS about hunger signals and "listening to your body" is, basically, garbage excuses to overeat. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message