 |
 | 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 / February 2005Paleo and Water
I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet where people are thicker-skinned. :-) Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's necessary. Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered. I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human populations do pretty well on high-carb diets. So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it. We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our bodies want. I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here? Beth >I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently >the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Beth I'm going to post this to a paleofood message board and see what they say. I have my views on this very topic but I will take them up there. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** :: I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. :: Apparently the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] :: amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely :: necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here? No...I think your reasoning is dead-on. I don't drink huge amounts of water and won't ever. Drinking a little more while trying to lose weight is probably a good idea for lots of reasons, but this silly notion that one needs to tote around a gallon jug and refill it every hour is just silly. eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote in news:1108050469.105042.133530 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing > over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be > realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to > each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it. Interesting question. I'm wondering if, back when we were hunter-gatherers, we got more water from the food we hunted and gathered. Examples that come to mind: - A freshly killed animal's flesh contains more blood (which is mostly water, IIRC) than a t-bone on styro and under plastic in the supermarket. - Might this also hold true for what we gathered? Freshly picked fruits and other things we gathered--would they contain more water than what we find in a pint container in the supermarket? I'd think yes, but this is pure speculation. Cate Hmm. I think this could go either way. I too suspect freshly picked fruits/veggies have more water than those stored and shipped, but ours have been bred to be big and juicy. They had freshly killed meat, but it wouldn't be freshly killed after the first day, and we have plastic wrap to keep our not-freshly-killed meat moist. Anyway, either way, you'd have to argue that our thirst mechanisms are too broken to make up for day-to-day differences in how juicy the fruit was or how fresh the meat was. Beth eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote in news:1108053112.471648.7420 @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Hmm. I think this could go either way. I too suspect freshly picked > fruits/veggies have more water than those stored and shipped, but ours > have been bred to be big and juicy. They had freshly killed meat, but > it wouldn't be freshly killed after the first day, and we have plastic > wrap to keep our not-freshly-killed meat moist. Ok, this is pure speculation and may be a tangent, but to go further on the blood-as-fluid consumption: If you didn't have agriculture, and you only ate what you killed or gathered, wouldn't you tend not to waste any part of an animal you killed? If you killed a gopher, you would eat its flesh, but might you also not drink its blood? This is pure speculation based on my recent reading of a fictional book, in which a person adrift on a lifeboat for months drank the blood of sea turtles when he was able. Drinkable water was scarce, and the blood held more nutrients and thus more fuel than water. I'm not saying water was difficult to come by for hunter-gatherers (although I'm sure it wasn't always easy to find drinkable water), but I'm thinking of the anti-wasting tendency of a person who literally lives to eat: Wouldn't such a person use every consumable part of an animal? Cate > eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote in news:1108053112.471648.7420 > @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This is pure speculation based on my recent reading of a fictional book, in > which a person adrift on a lifeboat for months drank the blood of sea > turtles when he was able. Drinkable water was scarce, and the blood held > more nutrients and thus more fuel than water. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thinking of the anti-wasting tendency of a person who literally lives to > eat: Wouldn't such a person use every consumable part of an animal? I get the feeling that both of us are working from half-remembered reading material, but why let that stop us? :-) Anyway, my general but uneducated impression is that hunter-gatherer groups didn't routinely lead lives of desperation. I suspect that when food was ample, they ate the tastiest parts of the animal and discarded the rest, and when food was scarce they ate every scrap. Whether the animal's blood was used probabably depended on a lot of factors. Er, short answer, no idea. Anyone who actually knows something about this want to step in? I do know that it's been argued that some of our ideas about hunter-gatherer societies are a bit skewed because all of the ones that survived into modern history lived on pretty marginal land - that's why it wasn't taken away from them by agriculturalists. Life for ancient hunter-gatherers was probably easier than for the !Kung, for example, because they had better territory. Beth eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote in news:1108056584.129844.223190 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > I get the feeling that both of us are working from half-remembered > reading material, but why let that stop us? :-) Never stopped me before. <g> > I do know that it's been argued that some of our ideas about > hunter-gatherer societies are a bit skewed because all of the ones that > survived into modern history lived on pretty marginal land - that's why > it wasn't taken away from them by agriculturalists. Life for ancient > hunter-gatherers was probably easier than for the !Kung, for example, > because they had better territory. Makes sense to me. Is there anyone here who actually knows about this? Cate > eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote in news:1108053112.471648.7420 > @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > an animal you killed? If you killed a gopher, you would eat its flesh, but > might you also not drink its blood? You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and probably crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same reason). And, if you were a somewhat more advanced toolmaker, you'd throw everything left over (except for the entrails) into a pot and boil it into a soup. With no 24-hour convenience stores, and no refrigerators, very little of any kill was wasted. GG > This is pure speculation based on my recent reading of a fictional book, in > which a person adrift on a lifeboat for months drank the blood of sea [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cate >You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and probably >crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same reason). And, >if you were a somewhat more advanced toolmaker, you'd throw everything left >over (except for the entrails) into a pot and boil it into a soup. With no >24-hour convenience stores, and no refrigerators, very little of any kill >was wasted. Yep. They would have used the *whole* animal as well as drinking the blood. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > >You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and probably > >crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same reason). And, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yep. They would have used the *whole* animal as well as drinking the > blood. I'm not particularly invested in this one way or another, because I don't think my case depends on it, but does anyone saying this know for sure if it's true, or does it just seem logical? I.e. do hunter-gatherer groups today definitely do this? Beth >I'm not particularly invested in this one way or another, because I >don't think my case depends on it, but does anyone saying this know for >sure if it's true, or does it just seem logical? I.e. do >hunter-gatherer groups today definitely do this? According to the several Paleo forums I am in many people certainly do. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:41:09 -0800, "GaryG" > <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Beth I saw a show on one of the nature networks a while back about recently discovered evidence of cannibalism in the southwestern US deserts. The archeological evidence included human skulls that had been set on the fire for the purpose of cooking the brains - the same cooking technique the indigenous peoples used with animal skulls. They also discovered human leg bones that had been cracked open for their marrow (same as with deer and other large animals). The bones also had numerous small nicks and scrape marks, the result of butchering with stone tools. GG >I saw a show on one of the nature networks a while back about recently >discovered evidence of cannibalism in the southwestern US deserts. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >other large animals). The bones also had numerous small nicks and scrape >marks, the result of butchering with stone tools. There is evidence of cannibilism all over the world, even in modern times. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** I am with you here. I have not been able to identify weight loss related benefits of drinking more water than our sense of thirst requires. Food is also a great source of water, as others pointed out. It is quite possible, though, that hunters living in a hot climate needed more than 64 oz of water per day to properly perspire.  Signature223/173.0/180 Ignoramus28403 <ignoramus28403@NOSPAM.28403.invalid> wrote in news:cug2l1 $f9h$0@pita.alt.net: > It is quite possible, though, that hunters living in a hot > climate needed more than 64 oz of water per day to properly perspire. Or that they were so active, what with most of their waking time spent finding food, that their water intake was higher due to their higher perspiration. Cate, who has no dog in this fight and is just thinking aloud > I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently > the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Beth Brilliant! I completely agree with your position. Our thirst response has been honed by millions of years of evolution, and has allowed us to successfully exist in a wide variety of ecosystems (forests, deserts, prairies, tundra, etc.). Arguing that it is "broken" and that we all need to consume some arbitrarily large quantity of water each day seems irrational. GG I don't know why they pick "Hunter-Gatherers" as their origin for their argument. We don't air drop from there. Why don't they pick "Nut-Fruit pickers" as their origin when we live in the forests? Now you have a Nut-Fruits diet. We are both opportunists and survior-ists. We eat everything and anything to survive. =>I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently =>the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet =>where people are thicker-skinned. :-) => =>Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be =>standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as =>being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND =>beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat =>the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's =>necessary. => =>Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their =>reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating =>lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the =>supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively =>fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered. => I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it =>ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human =>populations do pretty well on high-carb diets. => =>So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing =>over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be =>realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to =>each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it. =>We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get =>fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as =>I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that =>our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst =>mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our =>bodies want. => =>I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them =>personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I =>mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge =>amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely =>necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here? => =>Beth > I don't know why they pick "Hunter-Gatherers" as their origin for their > argument. We don't air drop from there. > Why don't they pick "Nut-Fruit pickers" as their origin when we live in the > forests? Now you have a Nut-Fruits diet. Weren't the hunter-gatherers out gathering nuts and fruits and vegetables and seeds? SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes > I don't know why they pick "Hunter-Gatherers" as their origin for their > argument. We don't air drop from there. > Why don't they pick "Nut-Fruit pickers" as their origin when we live in the > forests? Now you have a Nut-Fruits diet. $$ This is what I mentioned in an earlier post. We started out as small fruit, nut, berry, insect, root and greens eaters. With no claws, fangs, hunting tools or speed we hardly hunted down animals for food in those ancient times. > We are both opportunists and survior-ists. > We eat everything and anything to survive. $$ We were omnivores. However Creationists will dispute this conversation. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be > standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as > being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND > beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat > the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's > necessary. $$ Dr. Atkins is seen as a God by some people. I lost 46 lbs low-carbing without a 2 week induction and WITHOUT drinking all that unwanted water. Dr. Atkins books make it sound like we can all eat oh so "SUMPTUOUSLY" and watch the fat melt off our bodies.... but what bullsh*t that was! At some point most of us have to start counting calories like any other low-calorie dieter. And many of us start to miss the variety of foods that bring the carbs back up, such as fruit, beans, rice, potatoes etc. When I hit that PERMANENT PLATEAU I tried the water recommendation and all it did was keep me awake at night running to the porcelain pot.... > Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their > reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating > lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the > supermarket, $$ I read that we evolved on tubers, wild fruit, insects (people still eat them), bird's eggs, lizards we could catch, assorted edible greens, nuts and berries, and when available - meat. We're opportunistic carnivores. Early man was poorly equipped to hunt down animals for food. Compared to the other animals we were slow, lacked claws and fangs and made poor predators - until we discovered tool making. Once we learned to use spears and other such things we turned more to meat in our diets. With the short lifespans in those days people didn't live long enough for cholesterol to kill them. Disease, parasites, accidents and starvation took care of that. we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively > fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered. $$ Look to the several million years we evolved *before* we had the tools to hunt and kill animals. > I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it > ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human > populations do pretty well on high-carb diets. $$ Exactly! Haven't you seen the research on the low incidence of so many diseases in vegetarians or near vegetarians? They suffer from so much less heart disease, high BP, breast and colon cancer.... look it up. It's believed the Eskimos high consumption of fish and fish oil is what counteracts their high protein/fat diets. > So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing > over us making us drink all this water? $$ Drinking all that water is the dream of dietitians to help overeaters control their appetites - nothing more. I'm not even sure it'd be > realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to > each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it. > We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get > fluids. $$ There you go! Sometimes it doesn't function well in the elderly, but how many obese elderly do you see? Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as > I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that > our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst > mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our > bodies want. $$ It's total BS! People have posted on just about every diet NG and board how they lost weight without gagging down all that water. > I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them > personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I > mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge > amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely > necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here? $$ No, you are correct. At 60 years old I'm in excellent health drinking only when I'm thirsty. Ask any healthy person you know how much water he or she drinks in a day.... I can almost guarantee you they are not gagging down 64 oz. a day. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== :: X-No-Archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: unwanted water. Dr. Atkins books make it sound like we can all eat :: oh so "SUMPTUOUSLY" and watch the fat melt off our bodies.... I can eat sumptuous meals. However, i can lose weight by simply limiting how much I eat. Too bad you can't. but :: what bullsh*t that was! At some point most of us have to start :: counting calories like any other low-calorie dieter. And many of :: us start to miss the variety of foods that bring the carbs back up, :: such as fruit, beans, rice, potatoes etc. Only those in love with food miss this stuff. I can have fruit (berries), and I don't need to eat beans, rice, potatoes but every blue moon. When I hit that PERMANENT :: PLATEAU I tried the water recommendation and all it did was keep me :: awake at night running to the porcelain pot.... That's why you hit a plateau...you were wanting to eat SUMPTUOUSLY without regard to portion control and then drinking lots and lots of water. No wonder you couldn't eat your 3 cups of veggies. > Only those in love with food miss this stuff. Hm. Actually, I'm in love with food and I don't miss my trigger foods much at all. (Except potatoes. doG deliver me from potatoes.) Probably because, now that I don't prepare a starch to eat with every meal, I'm always searching for more varied ways to prepare my meat and vegetables. I enjoy spending a loving hour or so crafting a SUMPTUOUS meal (that's for Wysong) for my husband and me, and for my friends when we have dinner parties. The other night we had chicken breasts stuffed with a mix of Italian cheeses and locally grown pancetta. Tonight we're having almond- crusted catfish from a seafood market in Annapolis. Tomorrow I'll do buffalo wings from scratch with a homemade blue cheese sauce. At each meal I also eat about 2 cups of salad greens, asparagus, or broccoli. 2 cups is really not that much; I strive to match the volume of vegetables with the volume of meat. I almost never gave this much care to my cooking/food preparation when I ate junk like Kraft mac n' cheese and the primary goal was filling my belly with whatever was at hand. Cate > > Only those in love with food miss this stuff. > > Hm. Actually, I'm in love with food and I don't miss my trigger foods much > at all. (Except potatoes. doG deliver me from potatoes.) Probably because, > now that I don't prepare a starch to eat with every meal, I'm always > searching for more varied ways to prepare my meat and vegetables. ## Ditto! After a few years of strict LC I was out of recipes. And getting tired of the same LC veggies 7 nights a week. > I enjoy spending a loving hour or so crafting a SUMPTUOUS meal (that's for > Wysong) for my husband and me, and for my friends when we have dinner > parties. ## Buttered spinach? Yum! Sounds simply SCRUMPTIOUS! And it is, but variety is the spice of life. The other night we had chicken breasts stuffed with a mix of > Italian cheeses and locally grown pancetta. Tonight we're having almond- > crusted catfish from a seafood market in Annapolis. Tomorrow I'll do > buffalo wings from scratch with a homemade blue cheese sauce. ## Evidently you're really into cooking and have a lot of free time. At each meal > I also eat about 2 cups of salad greens, asparagus, or broccoli. 2 cups is > really not that much; I strive to match the volume of vegetables with the > volume of meat. ## You can eat 2 cups of meat and 2 cups of veggies at dinner? FOUR CUPS of food at a sitting???? Quit pulling our legs! :-D And I bet you're still losing 2 lbs a week as per Atkins books. Why no stats on your posts? > I almost never gave this much care to my cooking/food preparation when I > ate junk like Kraft mac n' cheese and the primary goal was filling my belly > with whatever was at hand. > Cate SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > :: X-No-Archive: yes > :: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > :: unwanted water. Dr. Atkins books make it sound like we can all eat > :: oh so "SUMPTUOUSLY" and watch the fat melt off our bodies.... > I can eat sumptuous meals. However, i can lose weight by simply limiting > how much I eat. Too bad you can't. $$ Oh, are you a post-menopausal women on thyroid meds as well? I thought you were a man. How do you prepare all that SUMPTUOUS cauliflower and lettuce? Too bad you can't eat like Dr Atkins claimed you could, and still loose weight. > but > :: what bullsh*t that was! At some point most of us have to start > :: counting calories like any other low-calorie dieter. And many of > :: us start to miss the variety of foods that bring the carbs back up, > :: such as fruit, beans, rice, potatoes etc. > Only those in love with food miss this stuff. I can have fruit (berries), > and I don't need to eat beans, rice, potatoes but every blue moon. $$ That's nice. I ate berries as well, when they were in season. I don't NEED natural food like beans and rice but it does add variety from all that SUMPTUOUS broccoli, wax beans, chard etc. ;-) > When I hit that PERMANENT > :: PLATEAU I tried the water recommendation and all it did was keep me > :: awake at night running to the porcelain pot.... > That's why you hit a plateau...you were wanting to eat SUMPTUOUSLY without > regard to portion control $$ You missed too many of my posts I see. Since you are a post menopausal women on thyroid meds as I am, tell me,... how few calories would be SAFE for us to eat while suffering from headache, dizziness, coldness and heart palpitations? Also you should also provide us with your Lic # so we know you're a real Dr. and QUALIFIED to give us this information. and then drinking lots and lots of water. No > wonder you couldn't eat your 3 cups of veggies. $$ Oh, you need to drink 64 oz of water in order to gag down 3 cups of veggies? What's the connection between excessive water the ability to eat MORE than you want or need? SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== They don't come much dumber than you. SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > veggies? What's the connection between excessive water the ability to eat > MORE than you want or need? > They don't come much dumber than you. Gee, JC, for once we're in complete agreement! Wysong is pretty much an idiot, always has been. When she was here before she used to rail about how "Atkins doesn't work", generalizing to everyone her own particular problems - post menopausal, thyroid problems, doesn't like to eat vegetables, and on and on. Like, because SHE could not eat everything (low-carb) in sight and still loose weight, as she mischaracterized Atkins' message, the diet wouldn't work for anyone AND was fatally flawed AND Dr. Atkins was a fraud. I think she's probably more self-involved than stupid, but apparently there's a fair amount of that mixed in. I sorta wish she'd crawl back under her rock, as seeing her whining volume increasing... yt again... has gotten very old. HG >> They don't come much dumber than you. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > message, the diet wouldn't work for anyone AND was fatally flawed AND Dr. > Atkins was a fraud. Lose, not loose. > Gee, JC, for once we're in complete agreement! Wysong is pretty much an > idiot, always has been. When she was here before she used to rail about how > "Atkins doesn't work", ## Gee Hannah,... it doesn't work and I lose 46 lbs on it in 5 months!!!! LOL!!! How did that happen with a diet that simply MELTS the weight off you - according to Dr Atkins? generalizing to everyone her own particular > problems - post menopausal, thyroid problems, doesn't like to eat > vegetables, ## Where did I claim I didn't eat vegetables? I always liked vegetables, even as a kid. It's salad I don't like. Making up stories now? Delusional? Just plain LYING? and on and on. Like, because SHE could not eat everything > (low-carb) in sight and still loose weight, as she mischaracterized Atkins' > message, the diet wouldn't work for anyone AND was fatally flawed AND Dr. > Atkins was a fraud. ## He isn't? Suddenly you've all switched to cups and cups of vegetables - where's all those SUMPTUOUS steaks, roasts etc. Atkins went on and on about? You're all on a near vegetarian diet now! LOL!!! > I think she's probably more self-involved than stupid, but apparently > there's a fair amount of that mixed in. I sorta wish she'd crawl back under > her rock, as seeing her whining volume increasing... yt again... has gotten > very old. ## Then move your ample butt to another NG, take your tub of SUMPTUOUS cauliflower with you...... SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > X-No-Archive: yes > ## Gee Hannah,... it doesn't work and I lose 46 lbs on it in 5 months!!!! > LOL!!! How did that happen with a diet that simply MELTS the weight off > you - according to Dr Atkins? Not sure what you're trying to say here, Wysong. Your complaint IIRC was that it worked for awhile, and then it stopped working. And that was all the fault of everybody else, not you or your thyroid or your metabolism, or your failure to learn to effectively tweak the plan in such a way that allowed you to lose more weight. You DO need to learn to take a bit of responsibility for the process, ya know? > ## Where did I claim I didn't eat vegetables? I always liked vegetables, > even as a kid. It's salad I don't like. Making up stories now? > Delusional? Just plain LYING? You keep railing on everyone about being near-vegetarian, and making sarcastic remarks about "SUMPTUOUS broccoli, SUMPTUOUS cauliflower" ad nauseum. I'd take that to mean that you aren't really enjoying your veggies as much as some of us do. > ## He isn't? Suddenly you've all switched to cups and cups of vegetables - > where's all those SUMPTUOUS steaks, roasts etc. Atkins went on and on about? > You're all on a near vegetarian diet now! LOL!!! You read the Atkins books and focused on what you wanted to hear, ignoring the rest. I know many of us told you that over and over, but since you refuse to acknowledge what he wrote *in toto*... shrug. I do eat a lot of vegetables, always have. I like 'em. I like them much better on LC than on WW, too, 'cause I can saute broccoli in olive oil with a bit of garlic, or butter steam those green beans. That's as "sumptuous" to me as the meat stuff, although I like that also. Veggies are very nutrient dense, so we should all eat a lot of them. Most people can probably eat as many low starch veggies as you want and still be low-carb, since most of their carbs are fiber. I don't even bother counting any more. > ## Then move your ample butt to another NG, take your tub of SUMPTUOUS > cauliflower with you...... How kind of you to allow me my cauliflower. Actually, I already ate it tonight. I saut?ed some onion and garlic and some sliced turkey sausage, then added some diced red and yellow sweet bell pepper and a bunch of cauliflowerettes, added just a bit of water and steamed it till the veggies were just done. It was delicious... sumptuous, even. I admit to being stuffed. And actually, my posterior is in pretty good shape from all the walking and biking and (lately) snow shoveling. Not to mention the squats I do regularly (do them a.s to grass, as they say, they're great for your legs but especially your glutes... even us mature ladies can do them). But seriously, I was hoping *you'd* be leaving, since you ARE the one railing against low carb... oh, like every 15 minutes. Ah well. HG >> X-No-Archive: yes > >> ## Gee Hannah,... it doesn't work and I lose 46 lbs on it in 5 >> months!!!! LOL!!! How did that happen with a diet that simply MELTS >> the weight off you - according to Dr Atkins? Heh....worked up to 46 lbs...you're just too stupid to keep it going. > Not sure what you're trying to say here, Wysong. Your complaint IIRC > was that it worked for awhile, and then it stopped working. And that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> vegetables, even as a kid. It's salad I don't like. Making up >> stories now? Delusional? Just plain LYING? That's so funny. What about salad is it that you despise so? Lettuce? Broccoli, tomotoes, cauliflower, etc? > You keep railing on everyone about being near-vegetarian, and making > sarcastic remarks about "SUMPTUOUS broccoli, SUMPTUOUS cauliflower" ad [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about? >> You're all on a near vegetarian diet now! LOL!!! Such a totally amazing moron you are. > You read the Atkins books and focused on what you wanted to hear, > ignoring the rest. I know many of us told you that over and over, but [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > till the veggies were just done. It was delicious... sumptuous, even. > I admit to being stuffed. Yes....preach on Hannah...too bad 'Stupido the Great' won't get it. > And actually, my posterior is in pretty good shape from all the > walking and biking and (lately) snow shoveling. Not to mention the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But seriously, I was hoping *you'd* be leaving, since you ARE the one > railing against low carb... oh, like every 15 minutes. Ah well. Just think....as long as 'Stupido the Great' hangs around, newbies get a free pass....I can snipe at it. :) >Heh....worked up to 46 lbs...you're just too stupid to keep it going. I guess this means I was too stupid as well then because I regained the 45 pounds I had originally lost on Atkins AND had a heart attack on *top* of that. ok this time I am *really* going back to my books. :-) **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** Yes, you were too stupid as well. HTH SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW >>Heh....worked up to 46 lbs...you're just too stupid to keep it going. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! > **************************************************** > I guess this means I was too stupid as well then because I regained > the 45 pounds I had originally lost on Atkins AND had a heart attack > on *top* of that. Jaime, at least you never ever gave up, you keep trying and when one thing doesn't work, you try something else. In other words, you've assumed the responsibility for your weight loss and for working towards figuring out how to make that happen, how to make it "stick". That is a characteristic of people who succeed, although not necessarily on the first try, or the tenth, or even the 50th. HG >Jaime, at least you never ever gave up Giving up is not an option. :-) **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** How can you still be 400 pounds if you never gave up? Oh. You never gave up stuffing your fat face. SignatureNow piss off. You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe. You must be trolling. -- Carmen >>Jaime, at least you never ever gave up > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! > **************************************************** > >Heh....worked up to 46 lbs...you're just too stupid to keep it going. > > I guess this means I was too stupid as well then because I regained > the 45 pounds I had originally lost on Atkins AND had a heart attack > on *top* of that. $$ Jaime - you, myself and many, many other people hit the same plateau or stall sticking to strict LC'ing. No matter what else we give up, we stay stalled. It's even mentioned in Atkin's books. It's not unknown, but to people like Roger, Atkins is a God. How dare anyone say anything negative about his GOD? Roger is on a modified VEGETARIAN diet and not Atkins. He's even recommending people stop eating meat and eat cups and cups of broccoli and other vegetables for their meals. > ok this time I am *really* going back to my books. :-) SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > $$ Jaime - you, myself and many, many other people hit the same plateau or > stall sticking to strict LC'ing. No matter what else we give up, we stay > stalled. Oh, brother. Jaime didn't hit a stall, she fell off the wagon. Lots of people do that. And people on all sorts of diet plans run into extended plateaus. That includes weight watchers, Ornish, calorie counting, low carb, you name it. > It's even mentioned in Atkin's books. It's not unknown, but to > people like Roger, Atkins is a God. How dare anyone say anything negative > about his GOD? This is just sooooooo stupid. > Roger is on a modified VEGETARIAN diet and not Atkins. > He's even recommending people stop eating meat and eat cups and cups of > broccoli and other vegetables for their meals. Ummmmm.... a vegetarian does not eat meat. A vegetarian eats foods of vegetable origin, plus IF one is an ovo/lacto veg one would also eat eggs and dairy products. There is *no such thing* as a vegetarian that eats meat, including poultry and fish. If you do... you're *not* a modified vegetarian or any other kind of vegetarian. You're an omnivore. And Roger hasn't told anyone not to eat meat. He may have wisely tried to steer people whose weight loss is slow or stalled into eating more vegetables and less of the high-calorie-density meats and fatty foods. That's good advice, and is also consistent with Atkins and most of the other low-carb authors. Stop lying. HG >>$$ Jaime - you, myself and many, many other people hit the same plateau >>or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > HG She can't help it. compulsive obsessive disorder you know. > > $$ Jaime - you, myself and many, many other people hit the same plateau > or > > stall sticking to strict LC'ing. No matter what else we give up, we stay > > stalled. ---------------------------------------------- > Oh, brother. Jaime didn't hit a stall, she fell off the wagon. Lots of > people do that. And people on all sorts of diet plans run into extended > plateaus. That includes weight watchers, Ornish, calorie counting, low carb, > you name it. $$ This is true. > > It's even mentioned in Atkin's books. It's not unknown, but to > > people like Roger, Atkins is a God. How dare anyone say anything negative > > about his GOD? > This is just sooooooo stupid. $$ So are the people who see Atkins or any diet Guru as a God. > > Roger is on a modified VEGETARIAN diet and not Atkins. > > He's even recommending people stop eating meat and eat cups and cups of > > broccoli and other vegetables for their meals. > Ummmmm.... a vegetarian does not eat meat. $$ Ummmmm.... I said MODIFIED VEGETARIAN diet. Even squirrels will eat birds eggs. ;-) A vegetarian eats foods of > vegetable origin, plus IF one is an ovo/lacto veg one would also eat eggs > and dairy products. There is *no such thing* as a vegetarian that eats meat, > including poultry and fish. If you do... you're *not* a modified vegetarian > or any other kind of vegetarian. You're an omnivore. $$ Yep, he eats a MODIFIED VEGETARIAN diet. Mostly cups and cups of veggies. > And Roger hasn't told anyone not to eat meat. He may have wisely tried to > steer people whose weight loss is slow or stalled into eating more > vegetables and less of the high-calorie-density meats and fatty foods. $$ But anyone can figure that out for themselves I would think... but to suggest they eat more veggies then they can comfortable hold such as 2 cups.... come on! :-) > That's good advice, and is also consistent with Atkins and most of the other > low-carb authors. > Stop lying. $$ You stop lying. Atkins is not a HIGH VEGGIE diet. I have the books, read the articles and listened to Dr Atkins talk on TV a few years ago. So stop the BULLSH*T! SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ what the f.ck is it about vegetables? i must have missed a post. you can get protein from goddamn broccoli if you need to. its in almost anything organic to some degree. but yes, you can eat fats, meats, vegetables, salads and even low carb trash sh.t and make this plan work. i dont see what the argument is, but the words keep flying... Signature_____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > So > stop the BULLSH*T! > X-No-Archive: yes > $$ So are the people who see Atkins or any diet Guru as a God. But I don't think I've seen anyone do that on this ng. In fact, Atkins has gotten a lot of criticism here. Again, you're just making things up. > $$ Ummmmm.... I said MODIFIED VEGETARIAN diet. Even squirrels will eat > birds eggs. ;-) If it includes meat, it is NOT VEGETARIAN. Period. Go to any vegetarian or vegan group and try that, you'll be excoriated. It's one of their biggest pet peeves. Has nothing to do with squirrels but with the definition that is assigned to the word by humans. > $$ Yep, he eats a MODIFIED VEGETARIAN diet. Mostly cups and cups of > veggies. Good for him, but if he's eating meat, which he is, he isn't any kind of vegetarian, according to long accepted usage of that term. > $$ But anyone can figure that out for themselves I would think... but to > suggest they eat more veggies then they can comfortable hold such as 2 > cups.... come on! :-) You're judging the world by your own experience. I regularly eat huge salads that measure close to a quart in volume. Mostly vegetables, with some eggs, fish, or meat and a little dressing. And 2 cups of any kind of cooked vegetable is easy. Sorry you're apparently veggie-challenged. That's not a good thing for your long-range health. > $$ You stop lying. Atkins is not a HIGH VEGGIE diet. I have the books, > read the articles and listened to Dr Atkins talk on TV a few years ago. So > stop the BULLSH*T! Then you have reading comprehension problems, Wysong. The Atkins plan isn't *necessarily* high in vegetables, but *can* be so long as they are the low-starch kind. Atkins does start out relatively low in vegetables, but you still get a good-sized salad and maybe a cup or so of a low-carb cooked vegetable, even on induction if you stick to 20 carbs and subtract out the fiber. Atkins, especially the later versions and the Atkins website, actively *encourages* people to eat plenty of vegetables, especially dark leafy green and highly colored ones. It encourages people to move on up the OWL ladder to as high a carb limit as they can maintain and continue to lose weight. It *also* encourages people to get most of their carbs from low-carb vegetables. Putting those two together means that most people can... and *should* be eating quite a substantial amount of veggies once they get past induction and into OWL. You can choose to read/listen selectively, but that is exactly what his book says. Other low-carb authors say the same thing, In fact, the Eades (Protein Power) said they thought subtracting fiber carbs from the total carb count was such a great idea because it allows people to eat a lot more *vegetables*. So... who's lying, Wysong? T'ain't me. HG >> X-No-Archive: yes > > You're judging the world by your own experience. I regularly eat huge > salads > that measure close to a quart in volume. before atkins i would get a large salad serving bowl and fill er up with all sorts of leafy greens, peppers, red and green onions, tomatoes, english cucumbers rosted red bell peppers, all sorts of stuff -- and lets not forget the crutons! i would probably eat that in 3 or 4 sitings. i do feel bad that shes vegetable and saladly challenged - some of the best meals i had were nothing but crunchy, fresh salads (but damn i miss the crutons). Signature_____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! > before atkins i would get a large salad serving bowl and fill er up with all > sorts of leafy greens, peppers, red and green onions, tomatoes, english > cucumbers rosted red bell peppers, all sorts of stuff -- and lets not forget > the crutons! i would probably eat that in 3 or 4 sitings. i do feel bad > that shes vegetable and saladly challenged - some of the best meals i had > were nothing but crunchy, fresh salads (but damn i miss the crutons). ============================ I despise salads. I rarely ate them. Is that a crime of some kind? :-) They're time consuming to fix, tasteless and not at all filling. Now you may be veggie challenged, but I love veggies and will eat everything but radishes. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== NOW WALKING 1.5 to 3 MILES DAY. ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > some of the best meals i had > were nothing but crunchy, fresh salads (but damn i miss the crutons). You might consider some sliced almonds - very good on salads and they provide a little crunch and textural contrast. I just try not to overdo on nuts, as they are pretty high in calories. However, tree nuts have a great fatty acid profile, so more nuts and a little less dressing, for the same amount of calories is a definite plus healthwise. Sliced almonds are also fabulous in tuna salad, I might add. With or without sliced olives. I sometimes add some garbanzo beans, but I'm on a relatively high carb maintenance level. HG wow thanks for the suggestion... i miss home, id be rushing to it right now to try that. <3 salads Signature_____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! >> some of the best meals i had >> were nothing but crunchy, fresh salads (but damn i miss the crutons). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HG > > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > So > > stop the BULLSH*T! ====================================================== > Then you have reading comprehension problems, Wysong. The Atkins plan isn't > *necessarily* high in vegetables, but *can* be so long as they are the > low-starch kind. ## No, you do. Don't accuse others of your problems. Atkins does start out relatively low in vegetables, but you > still get a good-sized salad and maybe a cup or so of a low-carb cooked > vegetable, even on induction if you stick to 20 carbs and subtract out the > fiber. Atkins, especially the later versions and the Atkins website, ## Oh, LATER versions. I see. Well I'm going by his books - not later versions of his website. > actively *encourages* people to eat plenty of vegetables, especially dark > leafy green and highly colored ones. It encourages people to move on up the > OWL ladder to as high a carb limit as they can maintain and continue to lose > weight. ## Yes, I read that. I repeat for the 10th time I had both books. It *also* encourages people to get most of their carbs from low-carb > vegetables. ## Which are low in fiber. Getting 25 to 30 grams of fiber a day from low carb veggies means eating more cups of veggies than some of us can handle. Putting those two together means that most people can... and > *should* be eating quite a substantial amount of veggies once they get past > induction and into OWL. ## I've read it all. I lose 46 lbs in the 1st 5 months and never dropped another pound LCing. And all I did was my regular work plus walked a few times a week. > You can choose to read/listen selectively, but that is exactly what his book > says. Other low-carb authors say the same thing, In fact, the Eades (Protein > Power) said they thought subtracting fiber carbs from the total carb count > was such a great idea because it allows people to eat a lot more > *vegetables*. ## Then, as I said before, it rapidly becomes a HIGH VEGGIE, low-calorie diet whether you can see that or not. > So... who's lying, Wysong? T'ain't me. ## T'aint me either, since a SUMPTUOUS low-calorie, high-veggie diet is just another diet out there in the end..... SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== NOW WALKING 1.5 to 3 MILES DAY. ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > > Then you have reading comprehension problems, Wysong. > ## No, you do. Don't accuse others of your problems. > > even on induction if you stick to 20 carbs and subtract out the > > fiber. Atkins, especially the later versions and the Atkins website, > > ## Oh, LATER versions. I see. Well I'm going by his books - not later > versions of his website. Hahahaha.... point proved, Wysong. I wrote "later versions AND " not "later versions OF" the website. Obviously, in context I was talking about the more recent books *and* the Atkins website. Honestly, no wonder you ccouldn't figure out how to break your stall... you can barely read. > ## Yes, I read that. I repeat for the 10th time I had both books. Too bad you didn't understand them. Try reading a little more slowly and see if that helps. > It *also* encourages people to get most of their carbs from low-carb > > vegetables. > > ## Which are low in fiber. Getting 25 to 30 grams of fiber a day from low > carb veggies means eating more cups of veggies than some of us can handle. It really depends on the vegetables. Broccoli is a good source, for instance. But what is stopping you from getting in some ground flaxseed? 3 tablespoons have 6 grams of fiber. Nuts are also a good source, and of course there is always psyllium & bran. And as I said, modest amounts of beans are low glycemic and not too high in carbs for most on OWL, plus they contain a lot of fiber (a half-cup of black beans has 7.5 g fiber with 13 g net carbs. The fiber thing isn't really a legitimate excuse for criticizing low carb diets. > ## I've read it all. I lose 46 lbs in the 1st 5 months and never dropped > another pound LCing. And all I did was my regular work plus walked a few > times a week. So what? Most people will stall at some point, which is a signal that their caloric needs have dropped and their appetite is no longer a reliable guide to how much to eat. They need to eat less/change what they are eating/exercise more, usually some combination thereof. You were just to stupid and/or bullheaded to figure it out for yourself. > ## Then, as I said before, it rapidly becomes a HIGH VEGGIE, low-calorie > diet whether you can see that or not. Nobody is even disputing that, Wysong, at least the low calorie part. Not everybody likes veggies nor eats a lot of them, despite Atkins' advice to the contrary. It's just helpful to do so for health reasons and it also helps people adjust to eating smaller portions of the higher calorie stuff, like meat and eggs and cheese and cream. Not everybody has to do this to get all the way to goal, I'd add, but for someone taking HRT and thyroid meds, and not fond of veggies or strenuous exercise (i.e., *you*) it will take some finessing to figure out how to cut calories enough to get to goal. Most people don't have those challenges, and so don't have to work quite so hard at it. Life's just a bitch, eh? > ## T'aint me either, since a SUMPTUOUS low-calorie, high-veggie diet is just > another diet out there in the end..... Well, not really. A truly low-calorie, high-carb diet, sumptuous or not, is probably undoable for most people who are significantly insulin resistant. Especially if it contains sugar and refined carbs. It is far easier for us to eat the same number of calories when the food is low carb, with carbs mostly just as vegetables. No difference in calories, but a huge difference in how it affects your body and how easily you can stay on it. I can't believe you don't understand that after all this time. Slow learner? HG >> $$ Jaime - you, myself and many, many other people hit the same >> plateau [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > HG :) She is so funny. She knows I was making fun of her in response to some wacky post she made. > >> X-No-Archive: yes > > > >> ## Gee Hannah,... it doesn't work and I lose 46 lbs on it in 5 > >> months!!!! LOL!!! How did that happen with a diet that simply MELTS > >> the weight off you - according to Dr Atkins? > Heh....worked up to 46 lbs...you're just too stupid to keep it going. ========================= You're too stupid to see you're now on a near vegetarian diet. Yep, guess I'll have to join you and give up all those SUMPTUOUS meals Atkins talks about in his books..... like you did. LOL!!! ;-D SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ >$$ That's nice. I ate berries as well, when they were in season. I don't >NEED natural food like beans and rice but it does add variety from all that >SUMPTUOUS broccoli, wax beans, chard etc. ;-) I miss beans. According to Neanderthin they are not paleo so I cannot eat them. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > >$$ That's nice. I ate berries as well, when they were in season. I don't > >NEED natural food like beans and rice but it does add variety from all that > >SUMPTUOUS broccoli, wax beans, chard etc. ;-) > > I miss beans. According to Neanderthin they are not paleo so I cannot > eat them. ================= But beans exised since forever. Why would they not be Paleo? I'm just curious. Early man would have picked and ate them raw I'm sure. They're high in fiber and depending on how many carbs you're allowed on Paleo, 21gms per 1/2 cup and 6 gms fiber (Luck's Mixed Beans). When I did strict LC I didn't eat them since they would take almost my whole days carb ration. On S-LC I spread out the carbs which left little per meal. How many calories are you consuming per day? Do you know? SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== >But beans exised since forever. Why would they not be Paleo? According to the book Neanderthin, beans are toxic in thier raw state so they would not be paleo. > I'm just >curious. Early man would have picked and ate them raw I'm sure. And either died from eating them or spit them out immediately. Raw beans do not taste very good due to thier toxins in thier raw state. > They're >high in fiber and depending on how many carbs you're allowed on Paleo, 21gms >per 1/2 cup and 6 gms fiber (Luck's Mixed Beans). When I did strict LC I >didn't eat them since they would take almost my whole days carb ration. On >S-LC I spread out the carbs which left little per meal. You do not count carbs on paleo but if you want to lose weight you keep your diet mostly winter-based. > How many calories >are you consuming per day? Do you know? Yes, even though I do not have to I keep track of my carbs and my calories in my notebook. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > >But beans exised since forever. Why would they not be Paleo? > > According to the book Neanderthin, beans are toxic in thier raw state > so they would not be paleo. ## Can you explain that? I know castor beans are toxic - but pintos??? Limas? > > I'm just > >curious. Early man would have picked and ate them raw I'm sure. > And either died from eating them or spit them out immediately. > Raw beans do not taste very good due to thier toxins in thier raw > state. ## Geeze,.... I ate them and I'm still here. So you eat everything RAW? I love veggies, but not raw. > > They're > >high in fiber and depending on how many carbs you're allowed on Paleo, 21gms > >per 1/2 cup and 6 gms fiber (Luck's Mixed Beans). When I did strict LC I > >didn't eat them since they would take almost my whole days carb ration. On > >S-LC I spread out the carbs which left little per meal. > You do not count carbs on paleo but if you want to lose weight you > keep your diet mostly winter-based. ## Which is what? Meat? By the time I gave up S-LC that was about all I was consuming, along with greens and low-carb veggies and didn't lose a pound. Didn't GAIN anything either. Just maintained and it sure got boring after 2 years. How much weight are you losing each month? > > How many calories > >are you consuming per day? Do you know? ## How many? I'm consuming around 1200 a day and as you know walking 6 days a week. I've lost 6 lbs in the last month. > Yes, even though I do not have to I keep track of my carbs and my > calories in my notebook. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== ## How much are you losing each week, or month? >## Can you explain that? I know castor beans are toxic - but pintos??? >Limas? You will have to ask Ray Audette since he wrote the book. I simply follow it. >## Geeze,.... I ate them and I'm still here. So you eat everything RAW? I >love veggies, but not raw. I eat my veggies raw most of them time now and cooked as well when I feel like cooking. Raw just happens to be easier. No cooking involved. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > $$ Oh, are you a post-menopausal women on thyroid meds as well? There's no end to your excuses. huh? I > thought you were a man. How do you prepare all that SUMPTUOUS > cauliflower and lettuce? Very easily. Too bad you can't figure it out. Too bad you can't eat like Dr Atkins > claimed you could, and still loose weight. I don't loose weight, I lose it. But I don't eat all I can...but since I want to lose weight, I eat all I want. I simply want to eat less so I can lose weight. See how that works, or is the concept to advanced for your peanut? >> but >> :: what bullsh*t that was! At some point most of us have to start [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > don't NEED natural food like beans and rice but it does add variety > from all that SUMPTUOUS broccoli, wax beans, chard etc. ;-) Believe it or not, broccoli and be part of a SUMPTUOUS meal. I don't do wax beans, though. >> When I hit that PERMANENT >> :: PLATEAU I tried the water recommendation and all it did was keep [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > $$ You missed too many of my posts I see. Good for me. Your post are full of misinformation, anywho. > Since you are a post > menopausal women on thyroid meds as I am, How dumb can you be? tell me,... how few > calories would be SAFE for us to eat while suffering from headache, > dizziness, coldness and heart palpitations? ah...more excuses. Also you should also > provide us with your Lic # so we know you're a real Dr. and QUALIFIED > to give us this information. yeah...your supply is endless. > and then drinking lots and lots of water. No >> wonder you couldn't eat your 3 cups of veggies. > > $$ Oh, you need to drink 64 oz of water in order to gag down 3 cups of > veggies? Your comprehension leaves much to be desired. > What's the connection between excessive water the ability > to eat MORE than you want or need? How much broccoli do you need? Eating more of it would help you lose weight. You could be at goal now had you tried it. > > X-No-Archive: yes > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > There's no end to your excuses. huh? $$ There's no end to YOU comparing yourself to senior women, huh? > I > > thought you were a man. How do you prepare all that SUMPTUOUS > > cauliflower and lettuce? > Very easily. Too bad you can't figure it out. $$ Oh I see, you float them in oil and fry them - what happened to Atkins SUMPTUOUS chops, steaks and roasts? You're almost a vegetarian so you're not on Atkins. You're basically on a typical low calorie, portion controlled, mainly vegetarian diet.... SNIP you redundant pontificating. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== >> There's no end to your excuses. huh? > > $$ There's no end to YOU comparing yourself to senior women, huh? As far as showing up how stupid you are, no. >> I >> > thought you were a man. How do you prepare all that SUMPTUOUS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > $$ Oh I see, you float them in oil and fry them Heck no...stupid. Veggies don't need to float in oil and be fried to be SUMPTUOUS. You might want to study the meaning of the word, now that you know who so spell it. - what happened to > Atkins SUMPTUOUS chops, steaks and roasts? You can eat that stuff. I do as I see fit. I just don't eat lots and lots of it. You're almost a > vegetarian so you're not on Atkins. You're basically on a typical > low calorie, portion controlled, mainly vegetarian diet.... Amazing how stupid you are. You MUST work hard at it. I'm convinced of one thing: stupid people can't lose weight! :) > >> There's no end to your excuses. huh? > > > > $$ There's no end to YOU comparing yourself to senior women, huh? > > As far as showing up how stupid you are, no. ==================================== Then you must see yourself as a women since you compare yourself to me all the time. Why is that? Are you a homosexual or transsexual? A bi-sexual? Do you have a sexual identity problem? SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ =============================== > Then you must see yourself as a women since you compare yourself to me all > the time. Why is that? Are you a homosexual or transsexual? A bi-sexual? > Do you have a sexual identity problem? JC is all sexes. I never force water. If I did that I would never drink it. I do have 2 cups of cold water in my morning protein shake every day. I drink 2 to 4 cups of tea each day (sweetened with a teaspoon of honey and no cream or other dairy in it). I will drink a glass or 2 of cold tap water daily when I am in the kitchen or in the bathroom because I feel thirsty but those are never forced. They are wanted. And just today I had a second protein shake for dinner. I did not feel like cooking but was hungry and had the 2 cups of water in it plus I drank an extra cup of water drank while waiting for it to blend since I was thirsty. I have had 8 cups of water today in total...none were forced. There is no need to force water and only in summer do I drink more water just by choice. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** I too question the need for extra water in order to lose weight. My first experiment with reduced water seemed to slow my progress. My second experiment with reduced water did not slow my progress. My doctor suggested that toxins get trapped in fat, and are released when losing weight. I suppose there are a lot of ideas to support the practice of drinking extra water. However, I suspect that a proper study would find the practice unnecessary. > I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently > the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Beth > I too question the need for extra water in order to lose weight. ## It's bullshit propagated by "true believers." It's like religion to them. Plenty of people dump the weight and don't choke down all that water. There are also foolish people who believe Dr Atkins that you can eat all these SUMPTUOUS meals and the fat will just melt off your body. Have you read his book? Look at Roger (another post meno women), who has to severely limit her intake of food, drink huge quantities of water and eat loads and loads of veggies to lose weight. She may as well be on Weight Watchers. My first > experiment with reduced water seemed to slow my progress. My second > experiment with reduced water did not slow my progress. ## Water had no effect either way on myself or my two friends. We all started LC around the same time (summer of 2001). > My doctor suggested that toxins get trapped in fat, and are released when > losing weight. ## There was a good website on this subject a few years ago. What do you do about the toxins trapped in the fat you can't get rid of such as in your breasts? The small amount of toxins stored in your fat tissue isn't likely to kill you. It's the obesity that'll do you in. I suppose there are a lot of ideas to support the practice > of drinking extra water. However, I suspect that a proper study would find > the practice unnecessary. ## I was unable to find any research at all concerning water stimulating or encouraging weight loss. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quantities of water and eat loads and loads of veggies to lose > weight. She may as well be on Weight Watchers. :) Poor Wysong! Jealous! ps...that would be woman, not women, if I were a woman. >> X-No-Archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ps...that would be woman, not women, if I were a woman. But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. SignatureBob in CT > But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. I don't understand WW anyway. Don't you have to pay for it? Who needs to pay someone to be told to eat less and exercise more? Cate >> But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. > > I don't understand WW anyway. Don't you have to pay for it? Who needs to > pay someone to be told to eat less and exercise more? > > Cate It does have its benefits -- you meet with people and discuss weight loss strategies. Also, some of the leaders are good. (This information from my girlfriend, who goes to WW.) From my perspective, it's a dangerous system because it allows you to eat crap food as long it's not high in "points." It's along the lines of "French Women Don't Get Fat," which advocates portion control. While I think portion control (and techniques for providing the same) is great, I personally can't have bad foods at my house or I'll eat them. Moreover, low carb has additional benefits (better blood sugar/insulin control) that WW doesn't have. SignatureBob in CT > It does have its benefits -- you meet with people and discuss weight > loss strategies. This (also from Beth's post), I can understand. That's why people show up here, after all. I get that some WW members need the camaraderie, or the person getting after them to stay on plan, or just to hear everybody else's stories. What I don't get is when people pay to learn the plan but don't attend the meetings. From my > perspective, it's a dangerous system because it allows you to eat > crap food as long it's not high in "points." It's along the lines of > "French Women Don't Get Fat," which advocates portion control. I think the point system, or a calorie budget, or whatever lingo people want to use for portion control is a-ok, if portion control works for them. But yes, I agree that portion control alone isn't the answer for everyone, or perhaps even for most people needing to lose a lot of weight. Cate >> It does have its benefits -- you meet with people and discuss weight >> loss strategies. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stories. What I don't get is when people pay to learn the plan but don't > attend the meetings. Sort of like those people who sign up to a gym but never go? ;-) SignatureBob in CT > Sort of like those people who sign up to a gym but never go? ;-) Exactly. One can exercise anywhere. One can also learn portion control anywhere. If you don't take advantage of the value-added stuff, you might as well burn your money. Cate > >> But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. > > > > I don't understand WW anyway. Don't you have to pay for it? Who needs to > > pay someone to be told to eat less and exercise more? > > > > Cate ========= > It does have its benefits -- you meet with people and discuss weight loss > strategies. Also, some of the leaders are good. (This information from > my girlfriend, who goes to WW.) From my perspective, it's a dangerous > system because it allows you to eat crap food as long it's not high in > "points." $$ What crap foods are they now allowing? There was no crap foods when I went in 2000 and 2001 that were low in points. Eating crap was not advised since it's all high points. It was mainly the diet Roger Zoul is on now. Lots of veggies with a little meat (4 oz for a women).. whatever, as long as you stayed in your point range. It's along the lines of "French Women Don't Get Fat," which > advocates portion control. $$ Just like the people here Bob! Calories DO COUNT as many people here admit. You can't eat like Atkins claims you can and still lose weight right to goal. How many have done that without hitting stalls and plateaus? If you do hit a plateau at some point, and most people seem to, you then have to switch to a WW like diet, i.e. portion control - limited meat/fat/ and a lot more low-carb veggies. While I think portion control (and techniques > for providing the same) is great, I personally can't have bad foods at my > house or I'll eat them. $$ But that doesn't apply to everyone! If you will eat them then you don't keep them around. Even WW will tell you that. Moreover, low carb has additional benefits > (better blood sugar/insulin control) that WW doesn't have. $$ WW is NOT a high carb diet plan, unless you choose to eat your allotted points (calories) as carbs. They don't encourage that. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Roger Zoul is on now. Lots of veggies with a little meat (4 oz for a > women).. whatever, as long as you stayed in your point range. Are you in love with me, honey? In news:37cj8cF5b0q41U1@individual.net, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> stated || $$ What crap foods are they now allowing? There was no crap foods || when I went in 2000 and 2001 that were low in points. Eating crap [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | Are you in love with me, honey? Quick! Propose! "FOB" <fob@removethisameritech.net> wrote in news:Xo9Qd.5677$J_1.1411 @newssvr31.news.prodigy.com: > In news:37cj8cF5b0q41U1@individual.net, > Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> stated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Quick! Propose! Yes, Roger! It's Valentine's Day, after all. You could get married and cook her your 'modified vegetarian' dinners every night. Because apparently if you're not eating 1-2 lbs of meat per day, you're some kind of vegetarian, hemp-wearing, tree-hugging hippy freak. Please start posting your free-range tofu recipes. Cate > Because apparently if you're not eating 1-2 lbs of meat per day, > you're some kind of vegetarian, hemp-wearing, tree-hugging hippy freak. > > Please start posting your free-range tofu recipes. You know, I hate it when people post those one liner "LOL" posts.... But dang it, this deserves it... totally funny. So....snort!.... LOL! HG > > But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. > > I don't understand WW anyway. Don't you have to pay for it? Who needs to > pay someone to be told to eat less and exercise more? I think some people do much better with weigh loss if they share it with someone. I know that the one time I lost weight on a low-fat regime, I only was sucessful because a close friend with whom I ate lunch almost every day at work was doing it too. I've also done better with exercise when I was meeting someone at the gym. It's just harder to convince yourself that a cheat 'won't count' when someone is right there with you at lunch watching you eat the unwise food. I've found low-carb enough easier that going it alone hasn't been a problem, but I can see how support can help. Okay, it's a little lame to have it be paid support, but if you don't have a friend who's interested in doing the same program it's a good option. Beth >> But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. > >I don't understand WW anyway. Don't you have to pay for it? Who needs to >pay someone to be told to eat less and exercise more? > >Cate It is a very *expensive* program unless you have that kind of cash to blow each week. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > >> But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is a very *expensive* program unless you have that kind of cash to > blow each week. Not *expensive*, *SUMPTUOUS*! ;) KeS >Not *expensive*, *SUMPTUOUS*! ;) *Whatever* that means....not that I care. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > >Not *expensive*, *SUMPTUOUS*! ;) > > *Whatever* that means....not that I care. ================================ According to the Atkins book it means delicious broiled steaks, luscious chops and fine roasts. Low cab veggies floating in real butter.. and other delights. ;-) SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > luscious chops and fine roasts. Low cab veggies floating in real > butter.. and other delights. ;-) You can eat all of that....however, you can't eat much of it...if you expect to lose weight. SUMPTUOUS doesn't necessarily mean large amounts. >> >> But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not *expensive*, *SUMPTUOUS*! ;) Right...that's why you-know-who is on WW...now... > Right...that's why you-know-who is on WW...now... ======================== And YOU'RE eating basically the SAME things I am! Low carb veggies and lean meats! LOL!!! :-D Lets see, tonight I had baked fish with mixed low-carb veggies w/1tsp olive oil. Yep,... sounds just like those SUMPTUOUS Atkins meals to me. You know, the ones he talks about in his books. Then tonight I'll have the carby little kiwi fruit. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > X-No-Archive: yes > >> Right...that's why you-know-who is on WW...now... > ======================== > And YOU'RE eating basically the SAME things I am! Low carb veggies > and lean meats! Well, I eat salmon (not lean)....grilled chicken....pork tenderloin..some times steak, but not that often. I have some shrimp in the freezer. So I do eat a goodly amount of lean meats, but I'm because I'm limiting calories pretty hard right now. LOL!!! :-D Lets see, tonight I had baked fish with > mixed low-carb veggies w/1tsp olive oil. Yep,... sounds just like > those SUMPTUOUS Atkins meals to me. You know, the ones he talks > about in his books. Oh, quite SUMPTUOUS here...but just not too much of it, my dear, sweet honeypie!. But I also eat a lot of sour cream mixed with protein powder and liquid splenda. About 300 kcals at a time, though. Manna. > Then tonight I'll have the carby little kiwi fruit. I like blueberries and strawberries. This very post is the reason why I've given you such a hard time, recently. You could have been doing this over two years ago. You simply didn't know who to count carbs in veggies, you're bullhead about eating veggies, and you seemed to not have not realized that meat has calories and that calories count. Some people, not all, just like to eat. If you're one of them, then your automatic cutoff for food may not function (that's generally the case with me). If that's the case, then you can't eat and let ceased only appetite stop you. You have to impose limits. Obvioustly, Atkins didn't want to say that openingly, but he does get around to it. And the fact is, many really big folks can drop a lot of weight and improve their health just by following Atkins rules while eating SUMPTUOUS meal. But some of us know better than to listen to everything that he, or anyone for that matter, says. Some of us also know our own limitations and face up to them. There is no way that Atkins would prescribe what is right for everyone. > > X-No-Archive: yes > > > >> Right...that's why you-know-who is on WW...now... > > ======================== > > And YOU'RE eating basically the SAME things I am! Low carb veggies > > and lean meats! ============== > Well, I eat salmon (not lean)....grilled chicken....pork tenderloin..some > times steak, but not that often. I have some shrimp in the freezer. So I > do eat a goodly amount of lean meats, but I'm because I'm limiting calories > pretty hard right now. ## As am I. > LOL!!! :-D Lets see, tonight I had baked fish with > > mixed low-carb veggies w/1tsp olive oil. Yep,... sounds just like > > those SUMPTUOUS Atkins meals to me. You know, the ones he talks > > about in his books. > Oh, quite SUMPTUOUS here...but just not too much of it, my dear, sweet > honeypie!. ## EXACTLY! Just like WW and the other low-calorie diets sweetie pie! :-))) > But I also eat a lot of sour cream mixed with protein powder and liquid > splenda. About 300 kcals at a time, though. Manna. ## Sounds wonderful. > > Then tonight I'll have the carby little kiwi fruit. > I like blueberries and strawberries. ## After 2 1/2 years of strawberries and blueberries, when I can find them in the stores, I'm ready for more variety. > This very post is the reason why I've given you such a hard time, recently. > You could have been doing this over two years ago. You simply didn't know > who to count carbs in veggies, ## How can you make such a baseless claim when all the packages and cans have that information on them here in the USA. you're bullhead about eating veggies, and you > seemed to not have not realized that meat has calories and that calories > count. ## Again I ask - where did I claim I don't eat veggies? I can't consume as many cups as you can - is that your problem? Or are you suggesting I switch to a veggie only diet, with maybe some sour cream? Some people, not all, just like to eat. If you're one of them, then > your automatic cutoff for food may not function (that's generally the case > with me). ## As you can see I never had a problem with my weight or a cutoff problem eating. http://www.heartoftn.net/users/windsong/index.html If that's the case, then you can't eat and let ceased only > appetite stop you. You have to impose limits. Obvioustly, Atkins didn't > want to say that openingly, but he does get around to it. ## Oh, he never said it openly - that's for sure. I saw him on TV. And the fact is, > many really big folks can drop a lot of weight and improve their health just > by following Atkins rules while eating SUMPTUOUS meal. But some of us know > better than to listen to everything that he, or anyone for that matter, > says. Some of us also know our own limitations and face up to them. There > is no way that Atkins would prescribe what is right for everyone. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== NOW WALKING 1.5 to 3 MILES DAY. ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > > But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. > > I don't understand WW anyway. Don't you have to pay for it? Who needs to > pay someone to be told to eat less and exercise more? ================== No, you don't have to PAY for it unless you WANT to pay for it, and make the meetings. I don't care for the meetings, nor will I pay $40 a month to attend them. WW mainly teaches people portion control. The meetings give those who need it, support. You can get just about all the material and information you need online, or from a friend who can run you off copies. Actually follow Roger Zoul as he's basically doing the Weight Watcher Low Carb plan right here on THIS NG. ;-) SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== You're paying someone to teach you how to count calories? SignatureMost people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Actually follow Roger Zoul as he's basically doing the Weight Watcher Low > Carb plan right here on THIS NG. ;-) > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > basically doing the Weight Watcher Low Carb plan right here on THIS > NG. ;-) :) At least you're referring to me as a 'he' again. > > X-No-Archive: yes > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > At least you're referring to me as a 'he' again. =================== And you're not comparing yourself to a woman either...... SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== NOW WALKING 1.5 to 3 MILES DAY. ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > But weight watchers allows you to eat trigger foods. ===================================== And yet people on WW are losing weight at the same rates as other dieters - after the initial faster "low-carb loss" of Atkins followers. Have you read the NYTimes article on the popular diets? People on Atkins also CHEAT - read some of the posts here. Many go off the wagon completely for a day or two. At the end of 1 year all dieters fared about the same, whether they were on a diet that allowed "trigger foods" or not. It makes/made no difference. In fact, to many people there are no trigger foods. Not everyone is addicted to carbs and carby foods. I see quite a difference in the tone of the posts here from a few years ago. Another thing I notice are a lot less people are talking about how much weight they're losing each week or month and I see few stats under their posts. Also.... why haven't all the people who were here 3 years ago still trying to lose weight if they're all doing the Atkins low-carb diet and it's working so well for them? At even a loss of 1 lb a week they should all be at their goal weights. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be > standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as > being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND > beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat > the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's > necessary. Actually, the older versions of Atkins' books didn't say much about water. I think Weight Watchers was the organization most responsible for convincing dieters they needed to get their 8-10 glasses a day. One thing I'll add is that there are lots of people who have gotten completely out of the habit of drinking water at all. Mostly sedentary types, of course, but they get all their fluids from hot drinks, sodas, etc. and often dislike the taste of water. For them, I'd say it's a good idea to set some minimum amount and learn to drink at least a few glasses of water a day. Once you do that, then I think the body's natural thirst mechanism works better and can be relied on. I think it may not work well for people who have gotten out of the habit of drinking water at all. Drinking too much water is probably as bad as not drinking enough. It does wash electrolytes out, and that's not a good thing, especially in the early stages of LC. But if you're not drinking a few glasses a day, I'd say you should probably be drinking more water. HG eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote:> > Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be > standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as > being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND > beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat > the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's > necessary. I think the 8 glasses of water thing is total bunk. I'm in great health, exercise regularly, and my usual daily liquid intake looks like this: 2 cups coffee with cream (sometimes just one) 1 diet snapple or equivalent 1 water bottle full of water at the gym. That's IT. I get comments by many people about how great my skin looks (all those water advocates always say you need 8 cups of water a day for good skin), I'm not excessively tired or thirsty, and always hear from people that I look much younger than my 37 years. When I tell people my daily liquid intake, however, the reactions are of shock and horror. Not really sure why! > eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote:> > When I tell people my daily liquid intake, however, the reactions are > of shock and horror. Not really sure why! probably because... you're wrong? you need water for everything.. once you feel thirsty, its already too late. but, hey, each to their own. Signature_____________________________ This be Tia's SIG!!! YAY! tia wrote:> > > probably because... you're wrong? you need water for everything.. once you > feel thirsty, its already too late. but, hey, each to their own. I DON'T feel thirsty, so I guess it's not too late, then. > tia wrote:> > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I DON'T feel thirsty, so I guess it's not too late, then. In any case, it's not true. There's been an actual study about it, and they found that in fact most people could remain adequately hydrated just from normal drinking and the water that's in the food you eat. I myself think this whole canard was started by the toilet paper industry. Martha Signature"I also want us all to be sacred where she is concerned and I am wanting to tell all of these selfish people in here to FO." CaliforniaGirl can't seem to decide. > once you > feel thirsty, its already too late. Too late for what? When I feel thirsty, I drink. End of thirst, problem solved - body is re-hydrated . I don't feel thirsty any more, so I guess whatever I was too late for is a moot point (grin). Thirst is a body's natural mechanism. That's so I don't need to babysit your liquid intake or drink by the clock. > > eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote:> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > probably because... you're wrong? you need water for everything.. once you > feel thirsty, its already too late. but, hey, each to their own. Wow, the thread came back to where I started! The point is Tia, there doesn't seem to be any *evidence* for your belief, although it's a very common one. And Wysong - as a total newcomer to your history, good heavens, get a life. Your ranting about how unworkable Atkins was will be more effectively answered when you lose weight some other way. If you can't, it may just be that you're up against some metabolic factors which make it very hard for you personally to lose weight. I've lost ~30 pounds and I'm currently maintaining that loss eating lots of meat and cheese (and sumptuous veggies)! Beth > eliz_reid@yahoo.com wrote:> > > Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > When I tell people my daily liquid intake, however, the reactions are > of shock and horror. Not really sure why! ================================== If I made this claim they'd be all over me like a pack of hungry wolves. If you stall they'll blame the lack of water. I lost 9 lbs the first 2 weeks LC ing and didn't drink any extra water, nor did I drink extra water those whole 5 months I continued to lose weight. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== NOW WALKING 1.5 to 3 MILES DAY. ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ >>When I tell people my daily liquid intake, however, the reactions are >>of shock and horror. Not really sure why! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > LC ing and didn't drink any extra water, nor did I drink extra water those > whole 5 months I continued to lose weight. Gawd just shut the FU*K up! Go somewhere else where they want to hear you whine. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.