 |
 | 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 / January 2004Does LC work for everyone?
Let me define LCing as the following: Eating no less than a certain amount of carbs, and eating other foods (fat and protein and fiber) until full. My question is, are all people able to lose weight if they honestly go on a low carb diet. That is, those people who have willpower and who really eat less than X carbs (say, less than 50 carbs per day, for instance), do they all lose weight and can return to normal weight? Or are there people who cannot lose weight by low carbing? I remember Dr Atkins mentioned "extreme metabolic resistance", and would like to hear others' opinions and anecdotes. i I think it's one of those things that are very individual to each of us. Because of differences in metabolisms and body make up etc, perhaps some people truly do not have a problem with carbs of any kind, simple or complex. I am sure we all know that *really skinny person who eats everything in sight*.. you know one of them I am sure you do, lol. There are plenty of people for whom a low fat diet works or a low calorie diet is what they need simply because they eat too much regardless of *what* it is. For me personally, just looking at my history with food, I know carbs are my problem. I can remember telling myself "Well I ate hardly anything at all today.. yesterday.. last week... why am I just getting fatter and fatter??" Once I think about *what* I ate and not necessarily *how much*, it's easy to see where the problem was. Sure that bowl of cream of rice for breakfast was very low cal.. no fat... those two little spoons of sugar don't have many calories.. but golly an hour later right back in the kitchen looking for something to stave off a low blood sugar blackout and you know the problem. Stop eating all that kind of stuff and problem is gone. No more blood sugar drops and blackouts, no more falling asleep in the middle of the afternoon.. Teeb > Let me define LCing as the following: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > i > Let me define LCing as the following: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Atkins mentioned "extreme metabolic resistance", and would like to > hear others' opinions and anecdotes. it depends. Atkins says that being able to eat fats and proteins is not an excuse to gorge. By that I take he means that *even if* you religiously follow his carb rules, you can still fail to lose weight, and could even gain weight, if you consume too many fat/protein calories. I may be wrong in that assumption, but I don't see how to read his stuff any other way. slr > Let me define LCing as the following: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > i > Atkins says that being able to eat fats and proteins is not > an excuse to gorge. By that I take he means that *even if* [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I may be wrong in that assumption, but I don't see how > to read his stuff any other way. I specified eating until full, that is, eating until no longer hungry. i > slr > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> i > > Atkins says that being able to eat fats and proteins is not > > an excuse to gorge. By that I take he means that *even if* [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I specified eating until full, that is, eating until no longer hungry. Too vague. > I specified eating until full, that is, eating until no longer hungry. Eating until no longer hungry doesn't necessarily mean eating until full, and some people don't realize they're full until stuffed. Most people who have a lot of weight to lose, more than 100 pounds, can eat fairly freely outside of counting carbs. People with less weight to lose, especially less than 50 pounds, usually need to watch total calories. The most common problem is snacking on too much cheese, or cream-based desserts. Calories can add up fast at about 100 calories per ounce. Atkins sample menus treat cheese as more of a condiment, using it as a snack staple can be a diet-killer. Nuts are another high calorie snack that can be a staller for the same reason if you don't limit them. None of this takes into account all the recent low-carb snack products, which can be loaded with sugar alcohols (and excess calories) that stall most people if they eat more than a little. Low-carb junk food is still junk food.  Signaturejamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) "There's a seeker born every minute." On 13 Jan 2004 18:44:06 GMT, Ignoramus14640 <ignoramus14640@NOSPAM.14640.invalid> announced in front of God and everybody: >My question is, are all people able to lose weight if they honestly go >on a low carb diet. That is, those people who have willpower and who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Atkins mentioned "extreme metabolic resistance", and would like to >hear others' opinions and anecdotes. My opinion? No -- it's not for everyone. Reading Atkins book, it's clear that he developed his version of low-carb as an answer to the problem of seriously overweight people who were metabolic/insulin resistant. There's a reason it works and it's laid out in the book's explanation of insulin response and fat creation/depletion. For some non-IR people, going low carb means they'll lose weight because they're a) first losing retained water and b) actually eating less calories than they need to maintain their current weight. But for people who aren't IR and/or don't have a lot of weight to lose, the diet doesn't seem to have the same effect. They need to cut calories, not carbs, and the effect of a LC diet on their metabolism isn't going to be the sameas on IR people. Some individuals, with just 10-20 vanity pounds to lose, may not be able to lose or even find they're gaining weight, because of the amount of calories they're eating vs. what they're burning. Right now it's the hot diet of the moment and we're seeing our share of baffled posters who want to know why it isn't working for them. The answer: It's NOT for everybody. Some -- probably most -- people need to just do as JC advises, eat less and exercise more. For some of us, who have insulin issues, low-carb is a godsend. But not everyone is insulin resistant. Dawn > On 13 Jan 2004 18:44:06 GMT, Ignoramus14640 ><ignoramus14640@NOSPAM.14640.invalid> announced in front of God and [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Dawn Thank you for your answer. I tend to be in agreement with you. i > On 13 Jan 2004 18:44:06 GMT, Ignoramus14640 > <ignoramus14640@NOSPAM.14640.invalid> announced in front of God and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > it's laid out in the book's explanation of insulin response and fat > creation/depletion. I disagree on many levels. 1) We are all of the same species, our nutritional requirements are pretty much exactly the same, except for the obvious exceptions such as lactose intolerant, etc. 2) Restricting junk carbs can only help, whether we are looking at weight control or just good health. And this applies to all of us. > For some non-IR people, going low carb means they'll lose weight > because they're a) first losing retained water and b) actually eating > less calories than they need to maintain their current weight. Some water will be lost, but fat will be lost also. And since the intake of protein is adequate, not protein loss will take place. Calories may be a factor but it is definitely secondary to the hormonal factors. If calories were such an important factor in weight loss then anyone would be easily able to lose weight by following the standard low-fat/low-cal diet, wouldn't they? But we all know that this isn't the case. > But for people who aren't IR and/or don't have a lot of weight to > lose, the diet doesn't seem to have the same effect. They need to cut [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dawn It is most definitely for everybody, insulin resistant or not. If you eat a high-carb diet you will eventually develop some weight gain and/or some insulin resistance. High blood sugar levels damages and eventually kills insulin receptors. It also causes the body to produce unusually high amounts of insulin. Your pancreas can only produce so much insulin in your lifetime. Eventually it burns out. A high-carb diet speeds this up. If the low-carb diet isn't working there may be several reasons why. 1) Low muscle mass. Exercise to increase the muscle mass. More muscle means a more efficient and/or a higher metabolism rate. 2) A plateau is reached. Have patience, eventually the weight-loss kicks in again. The so-called "whoosh fairy" effect. Eat less junk carbs and exercise more is a much more appropriate piece of advice. TC >> My opinion? No -- it's not for everyone. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >pretty much exactly the same, except for the obvious exceptions such >as lactose intolerant, etc. Those obvious exceptions are precisely why our nutritional requirements are NOT "pretty much exactly the same." Even among people who aren't metabolically or insulin resistant -- or diabetic! -- you find a wide swing of how many calories are needed to maintain/lose weight and differing needs in nutritional supplements. And being IR is one of those "obvious exceptions" to the supposed norm of weight loss -- those who are resistant don't process carbohydrates the same way as non-IR people. Which is why the low-carb diet was created, and why it works for those people. >2) Restricting junk carbs can only help, whether we are looking at >weight control or just good health. And this applies to all of us. I agree with this absolutely -- but it has little or nothing to do with whether a low-carb diet will help everyone who tries it to *lose weight*. >> For some non-IR people, going low carb means they'll lose weight >> because they're a) first losing retained water and b) actually eating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >standard low-fat/low-cal diet, wouldn't they? But we all know that >this isn't the case. You seem to be completely missing my point. Calories are NOT secondary to hormonal factors in people who aren't insulin resistant and who don't have a large amount of weight to lose. For these people, eating too many calories is the problem -- restricting and/or burning calories is the solution. >It is most definitely for everybody, insulin resistant or not. If you >eat a high-carb diet you will eventually develop some weight gain >and/or some insulin resistance. That's simply not true. There are people -- a fair number of people -- who are able to get by just fine on a high-carb diet. It may not be the BEST diet,and they may not have optimum health for it, but they do just fine. Come on -- we all know people who eat along the basic food pyramid guidelines and maintain a healthy weight. Eating a lot of bread, pasta, grains and even sugar is not a guaranteed trip to insulin resistance. >High blood sugar levels damages and >eventually kills insulin receptors. It also causes the body to produce >unusually high amounts of insulin. Your pancreas can only produce so >much insulin in your lifetime. Eventually it burns out. A high-carb >diet speeds this up. And yet, just to offer one piece of anecdotal evidence, my father was rail-thin, grew up during the Depression eating almost nothing but starchy fillers, as an adult ate slabs of white bread with every meal along with corn and beans and potatoes, ate a candy bar pretty much every day ... and never gained weight or developed insulin issues. Explain that. >If the low-carb diet isn't working there may be several reasons why. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Eat less junk carbs and exercise more is a much more appropriate piece >of advice. It's fine advice for anyone. But still ... a low-carb diet just isn't the best solution for _everyone_. Dawn > > >> My opinion? No -- it's not for everyone. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Those obvious exceptions are precisely why our nutritional > requirements are NOT "pretty much exactly the same." They vary very *little* therefore for all intents and purposes our nutritional requirements are "pretty much exactly the same". Obviously the larger the persons lean body mass, the more nutrition will be needed, but proportionally the requirements will be very very similar. The obvious exceptions are just that exceptions. The rest of us are not exceptions therefore out needs will be ver very similar. > Even among people who aren't metabolically or insulin resistant -- or > diabetic! -- you find a wide swing of how many calories are needed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the same way as non-IR people. Which is why the low-carb diet was > created, and why it works for those people. You miss the main concept here completely. Calories and the whole calorie concept is not a practical approach to nutrition. It is virtually impossible to say that a person needs X number of calories to gain, lose or maintain weight. The hormonal effects of foods affects things more than calories. Even if you are IR you still metabolize carbs in exactly the same way. > >2) Restricting junk carbs can only help, whether we are looking at > >weight control or just good health. And this applies to all of us. > > I agree with this absolutely -- but it has little or nothing to do > with whether a low-carb diet will help everyone who tries it to *lose > weight*. It has every thing to do with it. A low-carb diet will eventually lead to over weight people losing weight. Some faster, some slower, some will only lose up to a certain weight. > >> For some non-IR people, going low carb means they'll lose weight > >> because they're a) first losing retained water and b) actually eating [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > For these people, eating too many calories is the problem -- > restricting and/or burning calories is the solution. Calories consumed are not a practical predictor of weight loss or gain. If that was the case *anyone* on a low-calorie diet would be able to lose exactly how much they want to lose, within the time-frame they want to lose it, and when they chose to lose it. Statistical common-sense says that if the calorie method is valid then everyone within the third standard deviation (97% or therabouts) would be able to successfully accomplish their weight loss goals by simply counting calories. Now you know damned well that this does not happen. Something is making it virtually impossible for people to lose weight by restricting fats and calories. Failure rates of the low-cal approach have been documented at vaious times as being anywhere from 60% to 98%. That is what we call a red flag. There is something seriously hampering the low-cal approach. Hence the current discussion about junk carbs and its effects on HORMONES. > >It is most definitely for everybody, insulin resistant or not. If you > >eat a high-carb diet you will eventually develop some weight gain [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bread, pasta, grains and even sugar is not a guaranteed trip to > insulin resistance. Nonsense. We know that there has been a major shift from fats to carbs. As much as 10% less fats and 10% more carbs. We are eating more along the lines of the food pyramid than ever and people are getting fatter and sicker. Insulin receptors are damaged and killed by elevated levels of blood glucose in a dose-dependent manner. The more glucose the more damage. Eating a lot of bread, pasta, grains and even sugar *is* a *guaranteed* trip to insulin resistance. > >High blood sugar levels damages and > >eventually kills insulin receptors. It also causes the body to produce [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > every day ... and never gained weight or developed insulin issues. > Explain that. He never restricted fats, which slows the absorption of carbs and the subsequent insulin spike. Didn't drink copious amounts of soda. Ate enough meat protein so that he didn't eat high-carb snacks between meals. I'll bet that the overall glycemic-loads of his meals were fairly reasonable. > >If the low-carb diet isn't working there may be several reasons why. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dawn Let's put it this way. A diet high in refined carbs is for no-one. It is not healthy. It is not "normal" given how we evolved millions of years without refined carbs. Refined carbs are not only empty nutrition, it robs us of vital vitamins and minerals. It leads to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. A low-carb diet is simply restricting these highly refined carbs. You end up eating more fruits and vegetables. They just replace the refined grain products like pasta, white bread, cakes, etc, and refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup, etc. Are you suggesting that highly refined grain products and refined sugars make up part of a healthy diet? TC > > Ignoramus14640 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My opinion? No -- it's not for everyone. Sure. Humans have too much variation for ANY plan to work for ALL humans. That leads me to the idea of low yield vs high yield. Low carb plans in general appear to work for more people than low fat plans in general. I suspect this is mostly because more people experience decreased appetite when low carbing and more people experience increased appetite when low fatting, but I've encountered enough exceptions to both sides of that to call it a universal rule. Custom tuned processes in general work better than one-size-fits-all processes in general. Atkins is cutomized on carb levels, so it has an edge. Protein Power is customized on protein levels, so it has an edge. I have only read one popular low fat book and a few low fat pamphlets, but none of them have been custom tuned to each person until I read the 6 Week Body Makeover. Anyways, this leads me to think that low carbing works for very many people and the custom ones work for extremely many people, but it is certain that there are folks out there it does not work for. > Some individuals, with just > 10-20 vanity pounds to lose, may not be able to lose or even find > they're gaining weight Actually, I insist on claiming that low carb works for folks in this boat. If you have nothing to lose, and you maintain on a low carb plan, then it worked. Doesn't matter if you *want* to go below your ideal weight, getting to your real ideal weight is the primary qualifier for the plan working. Only a fad diet will want to take folks below their ideal weight. I know folks trying to lose those vanity pounds are now cursing me for this statement. Yeah, well, already being victorious must be like that. > Right now it's the hot diet of the moment and we're seeing our share > of baffled posters who want to know why it isn't working for them. The > answer: It's NOT for everybody. What I see is our share of baffled posters who aren't actually following their plan of choice in detail and that's why they're failing. What I see is our share of baffled posters who are actually doing just fine in rational time frames but who are too impatient because they expect instant loss. What I see is our share of baffled posters who are already at their ideal weight trying to get below it. What I see is our share of people eating low carb junk food at every fast food place in sight who are wondering why eating junk food doesn't lead to weight loss, and that is getting worse every day. To figure out a plan doesn't work for you takes months. Several months. It takes carefull articulation of the details of the plan. It takes consideration and experimentation. Very few people ever have the patience for that. For example, on the Escribe board there's a poster who started Atkins, lost a few pounds and stalled. She wasn't hungry and that had never happened on any diet before so she just would *not* leave and she would *not* give up. Folks spent month after month working her through the stages of the stall buster process. By the time she start losing again, the food she was eating was not recognizable as Atkins. It was low carb plus low fat plus low calorie, just right to stall most people and make them miserable but this one person needed it to work. I'm ready to say that low carbing doesn't work for her. But in spite of that she used the process so she is arguably where the Atkins process led her and therefore arguably still on Atkins. > Some -- probably most -- people need > to just do as JC advises, eat less and exercise more. I disagree with the "probably most" part, but low carbing is certainly no excuse to overeat. The reason I disagree with that part is when I read menus that have amounts I count more undereaters than overeaters. an undereater needs to increase calories (from some controlled source) to lose better most of the time. > Actually, I insist on claiming that low carb works for folks in this > boat. If you have nothing to lose, and you maintain on a low carb [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > vanity pounds are now cursing me for this statement. Yeah, well, > already being victorious must be like that. Doug, how would you determine one's ideal weight. I am in this situation, I am at normal weight now (223/176/180, 5'11", BMI 24.4), but I would like to lower my weight to my ideal weight and gain some muscle. So my 2004 plan calls for losing 10-15 lbs of fat and gaining 5 lbs of muscle. It is proving to be quite difficult. Anyway, I now have all the time in the world and can afford to be slow and careful and try not to mess up the good accomplishments. Yet, a question of what would be the ideal weight _for me_ is something that is unresolved. > What I see is our share of baffled posters who are actually doing > just fine in rational time frames but who are too impatient because > they expect instant loss. What I see is our share of baffled > posters who are already at their ideal weight trying to get below > it. always amazes me, when I see people obviously _below_ their ideal weight, trying to lose more. > What I see is our share of people eating low carb junk food at > every fast food place in sight who are wondering why eating junk > food doesn't lead to weight loss, and that is getting worse every > day. Worse and worse, people are now celebrating that there is more and more "LC" labeled junk food. i 223/176/180 >> Some individuals, with just >> 10-20 vanity pounds to lose, may not be able to lose or even find [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >ideal weight, getting to your real ideal weight is the primary >qualifier for the plan working. Except . Say you're a 50-year-old woman who gets only a moderate amount of exercise and you want to lose ten pounds. You go on Atkins induction and read that you shouldn't bother counting calories, just eat the proscribed foods until "satisfied" and don't count calories. Well, in that case it's quite possible to eat not only the same amount of calories needed to maintain current weight but to eat MORE calories and actually gain. Result: Low carb didn't work. What would work? Calorie reduction and more exercise. > Only a fad diet will want to take >folks below their ideal weight. Huh? What a load of nonsense. Hell, poverty and malnutrition will take someone below their ideal weight. As will any calorie restricting diet, if pursued aggressively enough. <snip> >> Some -- probably most -- people need >> to just do as JC advises, eat less and exercise more. > >I disagree with the "probably most" part, Disagree all you want. Most overweight people aren't metabolically challenged or insulin resistant. Low carb may *help* them to eat less, but if that's the case then, well, great. But eating less -- and better, which doesn't necessarily mean a low-carb diet -- is indeed all that's needed for most people. >but low carbing is certainly no excuse to overeat. Which dovetails nicely with everything I said. Dawn > Say you're a 50-year-old woman who gets only a moderate amount of > exercise and you want to lose ten pounds. You go on Atkins induction [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of calories needed to maintain current weight but to eat MORE calories > and actually gain. You can't gain new stored fat while in ketosis without an extremly high excess of fat and/or calories. Eating without overeating may be enough to keep fat from flowing out of storage, but it is not enough to force fat into storage against the hormones present during ketosis. Biochemistry. > Result: Low carb didn't work. Actual result: Not following the process long enough to figure out if it worked or not. Wrong time scale, which is one of the most common issues on the newsgroup. Two weeks isn't enough time to judge. > What would work? Calorie reduction and more exercise. Or an assortment of other debugging methods. Discovering stall causes like chemicals, junk food no matter that it's low carb, medications, an intolerance to eggs or dairy (the biggest food intolerance loophole in Atkins). Or already being at her ideal weight because the initial goal of 10 pounds wasn't correct. Some folks need reshaping not loss. > > Only a fad diet will want to take folks below their ideal weight. > > Huh? What a load of nonsense. And so everyone who selects an unrealistic goal will be able to conclude it didn't work for them. > Hell, poverty and malnutrition will take > someone below their ideal weight. Famine is not a diet. Argument by red herring. > As will any calorie restricting diet, if pursued aggressively enough. Right. Low calorie is brute force, and if you use enough brute force it works. Low carbing is skill. It doesn't take reducing calories, it takes keeping to a level of calories that makes sense. > > > Some -- probably most -- people need > > > to just do as JC advises, eat less and exercise more. > > > I disagree with the "probably most" part, > > Disagree all you want. Count posted menus all you want. More are under eating than over eating. Without data our disagreement is a matter of opinion and neither side can be accurately called right or wrong. With data the numbers tell which side is right and which is wrong. Postings can be counted. Controlled studies would be even more accurate. > Low carb may *help* them to eat less, > but if that's the case then, well, great. But eating less -- and > better, which doesn't necessarily mean a low-carb diet -- is indeed > all that's needed for most people. Using the usual guidelines, my ideal weight is 170-175 pounds and my best calorie level is 1700-1800 per day. Under my CCLL in ketosis I lose at 1700-1800. Between my CCLL and CCLM out of ketosis I maintain at 1700-1800. Above my CCLM I gain new fat at 1700-1800. Same number of total calories, different results. Within the "normal" eating range, it is not about the calories. It is about the interaction of the hormones in the blood. Discussion of calories works for folks who are not eating within the "normal" range. It works fine for people who ae already out of range but it is not applicable to people already in range. Yet calories are standardly used as the one and only tool in spite of the fact that it doesn't work that why. When a hammer is your only tool, every problem looks like a nail. Thanks to ketosis, I've got more tools. > Let me define LCing as the following: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > i For me low a low carb diet was a must. I have let myself go over the last few years. With being 46, overweight and a diabetic, type2, I have become addicted to carbs so much that this way of lifestyle eating is a lifesaver! My BG has been in normal ranges the last 4 months with no meds whatsoever. Considering I was taking 4 pills a day to control my BG, this WOE has been the ideal thing for me. For extremly overweight people, I would say the low carb way of eating is the best. I even have a lap now, can tie my shoes with no effort, can walk several miles now and in general, feeling pretty dern good! Myway > Let me define LCing as the following: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Atkins mentioned "extreme metabolic resistance", and would like to > hear others' opinions and anecdotes. works for me, though I'm not especially strict or fanatical about it. since sept. 2003 I've lost 24lbs without exercising, feeling deprived, and I "cheated" mightily on my holidays last month. that's two belt notches and what feels like three inches off my waist but I haven't bothered to measure. today I used the last notch in my belt to hold up my size-36 pants which would simply fall off without a belt. these same pants were uncomfortably tight last Sept, and it was the notion of going up to a 38 in disgust that did it. I've just joined a health club now that my company is subsidizing it, so I may not make goal but instead muscle up. get over the notion of "cheating" while you're at it. if you want to share a fabulous dessert with a good friend at a fine restaurant, or answer "yes" to "do you want fries with that?" then do it. just don't do it e.g. three times a week. now I look at the "fat" pics from my 40th b-day party in 2002 and just cringe. it's been slow going and it's getting slower, but I'm patient about it now. the gym should help. freaking out about stalls and praying for the whoosh fairy is a waste of time. don't panic. just do something different til it works. I still drink plenty of coffee and wine and I smoke like a coal locomotive. one vice at a time, I say. I could probably lose faster by depriving myself of certain things, but deprivation breeds want, and I haven't felt deprived since about after the first month. 190/166/150 Signatureyou know, if Jesus comes back to Earth, I bet the last thing he'll want to see again is another cross. > Let me define LCing as the following: > Eating no less than a certain amount of carbs, and eating other foods (fat > and protein and fiber) until full. > My question is, are all people able to lose weight if they honestly go on > a low carb diet. I expect not. > That is, those people who have willpower and who really > eat less than X carbs (say, less than 50 carbs per day, for instance), Note that "people who have willpower" is a new condition, not present in your definition. The diet works for me, and I have no willpower. (I might be able to muster some if I chose to, but I haven't chosen to yet, and won't as long as I'm still losing weight.) There are adequate studies to convince me that: On average, for a given number of calories, people will lose more quickly or gain more slowly on a fat and protein biased diet than on a carb biased diet. There are studies that give me reason to believe that: Most people's appetites are controlled more effectively by fat than carbs. I'm certain that works for _me_, a splenda-sweetened chocolate egg cream will kill my afternoon hunger immediately, the same number of calories in carbs was never so effective. (There are also adequate studies to convince me beyond any possible doubt that if I were willing to spend every waking hour of every day mildly hungry, my expected lifespan would increase by 30%. When I'm 85, I'll probably hate my younger self for not choosing to do that.) Back in the Bad Old Days, I'd eat 'til I was full and snack when I was hungry, and never exercise. The result was slow but steady weight gain. Now, I eat 'til I'm full and snack when I'm hungry and never exercise. I've lost 40 pounds. Being a guy, I don't care if I end up pretty, I just want to lose the pot belly (and the shelf across the top of it) and buy pants off the rack (EVERYBODY has 34-32/29, 42/29 _always_ required custom hemming). Possibly, I'll actually have to rouse myself to some sort of action (consciously not eating, deliberately exercising) to lose the last five pounds. Until then, I'm happy with just cooking a little different. Dinner was roast chicken, creamed spinach with mushrooms, and salad with a boiled egg dressing. So far, so good. Martin 215/174/165 lowcarbing since 4/2004 I think that those who find great success with low-carb have a tendency towards diabetes. Whether you actually *have* diabetes or not, you have insulin issues if low carb works very well for you. It just comes down to... if controlling insulin fixes the problem, then the problem is likely insulin-related. But I think a low carb diet *can* work even for those who do not have such tendency for several reasons. First, a low-carb diet tends to be a high-fat diet... and fat causes satiey resulting in a lower-calorie diet. But the folks who get results for this reason alone would likely get similar results on a low-fat diet. For these folks, it depends on whether they'd rather give up cream and steaks or pasta and bread. My SIL is getting great results on WW and has been for several months - I suspect she does not have insulin problems. she chose WW instead of low-carb because she didn't want to give up bread. Surprisingly, our diets are very similar... in that we both eat much more produce! My veggies are rounded out with piles of meat, hers with piles of rice. She's doing well on her diet and is happy with the results. Any diet that involves eating more veggies is healthier than the crap the average person eats anyway - so I think low-fat or low-carb, if it involves eating real foods, can work for some folks some of the time. I do think there's a secondary reason low-carb works well, even for folks without genuine insulin problems. Just because thousands of years of evolution have resulted in a "machine" that functions best on a diet of protein and fat with few carbs thrown in occassionally. This being the appropriate "fuel" we are designed for, it works best for us. Finally, there is research that the same number of calories on varying diets shows that low-carb diets have better results. But... I'd be interested in a study that separated them insulin-resistant from those whom are not and tired the different diets on eahc group. I suspect there's a lot of insulin-resistant folks in any obese group, so that might skew the results. On to more personal experience... As for the "gorging" thing... I am *allowing* myself to gorge to begin with. I calculate my need for protein at 85 g/day and am eating closer to 150 g per day right now. I'm not counting calories or fat at all, just eating up to 150 g protein and under 30 g carb per day. Why? Because I'm not trying to maximize weight loss yet. I am simply trying to stick to this thing for the time being. I had a severe blood sugar crisis in December and decided to start low-carb wih the new year for real for the long term. And for me, to sitck to it for the long-term means making it as easy on myself as possible. I still have cravings 2 weeks into this. I dreamt of doughnuts the other night... and I don't even like doughnuts! I mean, I'd understand if I dreamt about lasagna, but doughnuts? Blech. If I were going to cheat, it'd be for something much better than doughnuts! Hubby is not on low-carb and I round out his meals with pasta or rice or bread or such. And I bake dessert once a week for him, whatever he requests. I made a from-scratch chocolate cake for him this week. No problem. I don't have a big sweet tooth. But... I have a big starch tooth! So baking bread is rough. I am not going to stop baking bread now that I've finally got him on whole grains and have an expensive grinder and a large store of whole grains handy. So I may need to eat an extra burger while baking bread. That's OK. I'm "lettitng" myself eat all the burgers I want as long as I don't munch on the bread. Yesterday, we went to the Farm Show in Harrisburg. It was a great day, lots of animals to see, reserahc, all the 4-H displays... it's really a cool day and it takes a good 8-10 hours to see the main displays, not counting the shows. I love this Farm Show. But... it's full of tempting stuff I can't eat! Deep-fried veggies, ice cream flavored with real honey, other ice cream topped with real maple syrup, french fries, cream of whatever soups (probably made with starch rather than actual cream), fried dough (or elephant ears or funnel cake, whatever you call it). I wanted it *all*... but especially the fried mushrooms. I really, really wanted the fried mushrooms. I also got major cravings reaidng about how maple syrup is produced... So... I ate the food I brought with me, and rather a lot of it, and came home and ate my oversized dinner, and at least I am not eating carbs which is OK for now. It's not the ideal diet for me, but it's a big improvement from eating 4 tangerines and ending up in bed for 2 days sick as a dog with diabetic cramps throughout my legs, unable to stand at all, which is what happened to me in December. I expect to adjust my protein downwards in February, but for right now, I'm just not interested in anything except STICKING TO IT and building new habits... and a habit that involves overeating pepperoni instead of fried mushrooms is a step in the right direction. My attitude towards working out is the same. I joined the Y. I tried a bunch of different classes, Pilates (too hard for me), Tai Chi (which I love), Yoga (which is a bit too easy cause the class is mostly elderly arthritic folks). I don't care if I'm good at any of it or not, my *only* goal here is to move my body 3 times a week. That is a *huge* improvement over not doing so, so I don't care if I'm building muscle, getting to my THR, gaining flexibility, or any of it. I just want to MOVE. Because moving is a big improvement in itself and I *can* do that now. I swim before or after every class. I can only swim a half lap and then have to stop as I'm out of breath. The most I have swum is 3 and 3/4 laps with long breaks in between every half lap - and it's not a very big pool, this is really very lame! But I don't *care* how lame it is, I just want to *do* it. It's only "aerobic" for short bursts of time, but that's OK with me. I like swimming because the water helps carry the extra weight, it's the only aerobic-type exercise that doesn't hurt rapidly. So I swim. I swim badly and lamely and I don't care as long as I swim! I also spend a lot of time in the locker room at the Y when i'm done, hanging in the steam room and sauna, taking long, luxurious showers. I do not work hard at the Y, rather... it's almost like pampering myself. I leave feeling good, with at most a minor ache in a few muscles and not even that as a usual thing. I can't do much and what I'm doing is lame and slow... but it feels good. And I am building a habit, which is much more important for the long run than how much I can do today. Since I'm in this for the long haul. I can tweak my diet as I go along. I can have real fitness goals a few months from now. But right now, my *only* goals are to not eat carbs and to move my body. I will have other goals later, but for now I'm content to just be sticking to it. I know I have longer-term goals... fat loss, better control of my blood sugar, building strength, increasing endurance. A real long-term goal is... I want to be able to run and have it feel good like it did when I was a kid. I remember that feeling and want it back someday! But for today, not eating carbs and moving is enough of a goal for me. And incidentally, I've lost 9 lbs. I assume 5 of those are water, as I lost them suddenly in one day, presumably once my glycogen was used up. I'm believing the other 4 are fat at this point as they came off gradually. But that is *not* a measure of success. My measure of success is that I ate less than 10 carbs for breakfast, went to Tai Chi class and swam 3 laps today and that I feel good. *That* is my success. Martin, I'm new to this... so have to ask - what is 'boiled egg dressing'? Thanks neenao > Possibly, I'll actually have to rouse myself to some sort of action > (consciously not eating, deliberately exercising) to lose the last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 215/174/165 lowcarbing since 4/2004 > I'm new to this... so have to ask - what is 'boiled egg dressing'? I've very fond of this salad dressing: Sydney Smith's Salad To make this condiment your poet begs the pounded yellow of two hard-boil'd eggs. Two boiled potatoes, passed through a kitchen sieve, smoothness and softness to the salad give. Let onion atoms lurk within the bowl, and, half-suspected, animate the whole. Of mordant mustard add a single spoon, distrust the condiment that bites so soon. But deem it not, thou man of herbs, a fault to add a double quantity of salt. Four times the spoon with oil of Lucca crown, and twice with vinegar procur'd from town; and lasty o'er the flavour'd compound toss a magic soupcon of anchovy sauce. Oh, green and glorious! Oh, herbaceous treat! 'Twould tempt the dying ancourite to eat. Back to the work he'd turn his fleeting soul, and plunge his fingers in the salad bowl! Serenely full, the epicure would say, "Fate cannot harm me, I have dined today." Stripped of the poetry, with the carb problems *marked: half an onion (or, a clove of garlic cut in half) 2 egg yolks, mashed 1 small potato, boiled* 1 t powdered mustard (or 1 T prepared) 2 t salt 4 T tasty olive oil 2 T malt vinegar** dash of anchovy paste or fish sauce Rub a salad bowl with the cut face of the onion or garlic. Throw in a heap of designer greens. Combine remaining ingredients, pour over greens, toss. Serve to acclaim. To uncarb: *Obviously, the potato won't do. I use two whole eggs, rubbed through a medium sieve, letting the egg whites substitute for the potato. **Similarly, I substitute red wine vinegar for (higher carb) malt vinegar. This time, I added juice of half a yummy lemon from a friend's yard (probably a Meyer, but I don't know) adjusting the vinegar to taste. I also replaced the mustard with a good tangy mustard oil. Tossed with baby lettuce and arugula (really, a double handful of rugulas), it was delightful. I try to dress my salads to act as a relish or foil to the main dish; citrusy for fish, tangy and cheesy for beef, and in this case, smooth and flavorful without being too rich for the roast chicken. Martin 215/172/165 since 4/2003 |
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.