 |
 | 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 / March 2004And What is Wrong with that???
You know, I have to laugh at people who come on to this newsgroup as if they have something shocking to reveal, only to post "You're really on a reduced calorie diet!", with the air of someone who has just made a scientific breakthrough... like many of us don't know it... For people who are low-carbing for reasons of overweight and who want to reduce their food intake (others may have insulin resistance issues) ultimately, reducing calories is one of the goals, non? Sorry, my jaw doesn't drop at the revelation that I have reduced calories. I actually rejoice that I am able to control my intake of food without feeling like I am on a ration camp. It's painless and nutritious, and works for me. So I won't react with "OMG, you mean I've just reduced calories? so THAT's why it works!!", because for me, that was my goal, to find a feasable and liveable way to reduce calories. I've tried reducing calories the regular way before. It simply made me feel unsatisfied, and I was always watching the clock, just waiting for my next ration of food. Now, I eat, and when the meal is over, I don't have the distraction of thinking about food. I'd practically forget to eat if my kids didn't ask me close to lunch time "What's for lunch?" That's good, IMO. CM > You know, I have to laugh at people who come on to this newsgroup as if > they have something shocking to reveal, only to post "You're really on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reduce their food intake (others may have insulin resistance issues) > ultimately, reducing calories is one of the goals, non? i think people are confused by statements like this: "With Atkins, you'll get the results you've dreamed of, without the agony of deprivation." that's from the atkins website. atkins web banner ads promise that you can eat all you want and still lose weight. it implies that you don't have to reduce calories. so if one isn't familiar with the WOE, one is likely to assume it's a bogus claim. and maybe it is, but because of the reduced cravings, people on the plan eat less, and lose weight. and no, it isn't news to you, but it may be surprising to someone who knows nothing about it. -kelly ::: You know, I have to laugh at people who come on to this newsgroup ::: as if they have something shocking to reveal, only to post "You're [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: that's from the atkins website. atkins web banner ads promise that :: you can eat all you want and still lose weight. and for many, they can eat all they want....due to appetite reduction...that's also why there is no agony of deprivation...true statements, for most... :: it implies that you :: don't have to reduce calories. No, it doesn't really, that statement just doesn't address calories....what it implies is that you want to eat less (assuming calorie restriction is necessary, then if you lose weight and eat all you want, you gotta be eating less than before) :: so if one isn't familiar with the :: WOE, one is likely to assume it's a bogus claim. and maybe it is, It would be a bogus claim if it said that... :: but because of the reduced cravings, people on the plan eat less, :: and lose weight. and no, it isn't news to you, but it may be :: surprising to someone who knows nothing about it. Agreed...But whose fault is it that people are ignorant? Many people doing Atkins want to eat less and because they do, they restrict calories and lose weight. Atkins put the best spin on it possible, but why not when that's what many people find to be true? >>You know, I have to laugh at people who come on to this newsgroup as if >>they have something shocking to reveal, only to post "You're really on a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "With Atkins, you'll get the results you've dreamed of, without the agony of > deprivation." But people in this group obviously *do* feel deprived. If they did not feel deprived, why would they constantly be searching for faux this or faux that. Why is there such a market for low carb chocolates, desserts, shakes, and other junk foods (like the forthcoming Doritos that have been discussed here repeatedly), etc. if people don't feel deprived?  Signaturejmk in NC jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c3cdva$25sdcr$2@ID-220452.news.uni- berlin.de: > But people in this group obviously *do* feel deprived. I think you'd be better off saying '*some* people in this group obviously do feel deprived.' Every time someone posts asking for info on low-carb junk food, it's almost always countered by posters advising not to go that route. Cate > jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c3cdva$25sdcr$2@ID-220452.news.uni- > berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Every time someone posts asking for info on low-carb junk food, it's almost > always countered by posters advising not to go that route. My point was that the demand for these products seems to be quite high even among people who post regularly. I mean, we see product reviews of various low-carb/reduced carb chocolates and shakes and bars frequently. and so forth. And, FWIW, the post that I was responding to used "people" in the general sense and so did I. Signaturejmk in NC The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup saying "Guess what, you're really on a low calorie diet!" expecting the reader to react as if they've been ripped off. That was the issue I had wanted to discuss when I started this thread :) CM >> jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c3cdva$25sdcr$2@ID-220452.news.uni- >> berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >And, FWIW, the post that I was responding to used "people" in the >general sense and so did I. > The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk > food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That was the issue I had wanted to discuss when I started > this thread :) Either way, the low carb junk food trend is pretty messed up. People who are not careful can easily end up being neither low carb nor lowering their caloric intake. > CM > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>And, FWIW, the post that I was responding to used "people" in the >>general sense and so did I. Signaturejmk in NC >> The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk >> food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > who are not careful can easily end up being neither low carb nor > lowering their caloric intake. What is especially amusing is that much of the low carb labeled junk food is not even low carb. Last Saturday, I saw an extremely fat couple at Sam's club buying cases of Atkins shakes (170 calories per can), and was very sorry for them. i > >> The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk > >> food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > i If they intended to use those for meal replacements for a couple of meals a day and eat one decent low carb fresh meal per day, it might be OK. Although for my part I'd rather have real food. SignatureEvelyn (To reply to me personally, remove sox) > > >> The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk > > >> food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > (To reply to me personally, remove sox) That's what is so great about this WOE. The real food choices that are available are awesome to eat. Why anyone would feel the need to supplement with crappy shakes in a can is beyond me. "170 calories . . . let me count the ways . . " That is a sad sight. I feel sorry for anyone out there that is buying into the 'low-carb' craze. The only thing one needs to buy other than real food, is a book or two. Yep nothing magical about. Taking in less calories than one uses no matter what the calorie is (carb, fat, protein, a calorie is a calorie) and one will lose weight. -- AmyB LC since 12/01/03 238/211/165 >That is a sad sight. I feel sorry for anyone out there that is buying into >the 'low-carb' craze. The only thing one needs to buy other than real food, >is a book or two. Oh nonsense. Somebody isn't doing the wrong thing by buying Atkins shakes. NOt everybody has the time to prepare all their meals. My husband has to be at work by 6am, and drinks them for breakfast a few times a week. It's certainly not slowing his loss down, or hurting him in any way. If he has no time, should he skip breakfast instead? (he won't do the bars, they're rediculous) So if you saw him at Costco buying them, and felt sorry for him, save your sympathy. He's down 71lbs in 3.5 months, looks great and feels great. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/220/140 & hubby- 310/239/180 ::: That is a sad sight. I feel sorry for anyone out there that is ::: buying into the 'low-carb' craze. The only thing one needs to buy [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: Me- 265/220/140 :: & hubby- 310/239/180 I'm glad your hubby has a clue....because those big packs of bars that are marked LOW CARB and are full of SAs and calories will definitely slow a lot of people down on weight loss. >I'm glad your hubby has a clue....because those big packs of bars that are >marked LOW CARB and are full of SAs and calories will definitely slow a lot >of people down on weight loss. Well sure. He's in a hurry, not stupid. LOL! LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 5'7" 265/220/140 & hubby- 6' 310/239/180 > I'm glad your hubby has a clue....because those big packs of bars that are > marked LOW CARB and are full of SAs and calories will definitely slow a lot > of people down on weight loss. What are SAs? -- Steve in Phx steve burbled across the ether: >> I'm glad your hubby has a clue....because those big packs of bars >> that are marked LOW CARB and are full of SAs and calories will >> definitely slow a lot of people down on weight loss. > > What are SAs? Sugar alcohol-- a type of artificial sweetener that is somewhat like a sugar molecule and somewhat like an alcohol molecule but is not either one-- it's a slow digesting carbohydrate. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=what+is+sugar+alcohol+group:alt.support.diet.l ow-carb&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.support.diet.low-carb&c2coff=1&start=10&sa= N for a bunch of posts on this recurring topic. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Absolute power may corrupt absolutely, but miniscule power seems to render people insane. Trey ditto, An Atkins strawberry shake was my lunch today- ice cold out of the trunk of my car.Tastes like Strawberry Quick to me. I didn't feel like packing a lunch, and enjoyed that and my Vermont cheddar cubes later in the day. They have their purpose and I'm careful to watch for hidden carbs. I agree, sometimes we want to judge what people are eating. A very large customer of mine was munching on a Atkins breakfast bar.at 3pm. I'm wondering if that was a meal or a magic snack to her. I just said " is it good?" she said "surprisingly, yes" I got a look when I told her "Good, I've lost 25 so far," The conversation ended there, but who am I to judge. Maybe she just started, testing the product, lost as much or more than I have- its none of my business, accept to cheer her on and coach when asked. I didn't get it right at first- I had to let about 10 pounds of "healthy" fruit rot, that I had bought for my new attempt at losing weight before I read about low carbing. SignatureDiane Atkins since 12/4/2003 234/208/150 5"8 > >That is a sad sight. I feel sorry for anyone out there that is buying into > >the 'low-carb' craze. The only thing one needs to buy other than real food, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Me- 265/220/140 > & hubby- 310/239/180 >An Atkins strawberry shake was my lunch today- ice cold out of the >trunk of my car.Tastes like Strawberry Quick to me. I didn't feel like >packing a lunch, and enjoyed that and my Vermont cheddar cubes later in the >day. I've had a 4-pack of chocolate shakes in my fridge for a month or so. All the hoopla here reminded me to try one. I like it. Good to know that on the days when cooking isn't possible that there's something I can have that's ok nutrition-wise. I'm not asking anyone to drink it with me, so the upturned noses can move along. :^) -- Jean M. New food of the week: water chestnuts Do away with flipfloping to e-mail. :: In article <c3ci7e$26jd85$1@ID-220452.news.uni-berlin.de>, jmk wrote: ::: On 3/18/2004 11:12 AM, Crafting Mom wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: couple at Sam's club buying cases of Atkins shakes (170 calories per :: can), and was very sorry for them. Gosh...I was in Sam's club the other day...they sell lots of Atkins JF in mass quantities...I feel for those who buy that stuff without having the knowledge of how to use them and what the pitfalls are. Of course, if you want to be sorry for someone, look at the extremely fat couples who are loading up on chips, pops, and chocolate this or that. I see them all the time... :: i >What is especially amusing is that much of the low carb labeled junk >food is not even low carb. Last Saturday, I saw an extremely fat >couple at Sam's club buying cases of Atkins shakes (170 calories per >can), and was very sorry for them. How is that not low *carb*? LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/220/140 & hubby- 310/239/180 >> The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk >> food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> That was the issue I had wanted to discuss when I started >> this thread :) Well I think Atkin's writing is a big part of the confusion. His topics are all over the place and he doesn't focus on clear methodology in simpler steps the way he should have. The rest is caused by tabloidish "news" reporting and word of mouth. >Either way, the low carb junk food trend is pretty messed up. People >who are not careful can easily end up being neither low carb nor >lowering their caloric intake. Yes Low Card junk food trend is messed up, but so is the regular stuff that has been overladen with sugar, high fructose corn syrup and artificial ingredients. I like many differnt dishes and I do want to return to a variety of foods. I'd like to see a bread made that tasted reasonable, had very high fiber and had the fewest carbs. Whether I'm on OWL or Maintenance I want to find food that reduces unneccessary carbs. I will eventually eat bread, pancakes, rice, cake, all those things. Finding better way to make these foods is important. And it isn't deprivation, just better management. If I wanted to have regular rye bread I'd have some and restructure my day to allow for it. If I wanted to go out and have General Tso's Chicken with brown rice I would do that. I could balance it within my week by conserving carbs the days before and after the meal. I also would be prepared to return to Induction afterward in case that created cravings. I don't have to deprive myself. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/316/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 :: jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: foods. I'd like to see a bread made that tasted reasonable, had very :: high fiber and had the fewest carbs. There are several good LC breads....Sami's Bakery is my favorite. http://www.samisbakery.com/ Whether I'm on OWL or :: Maintenance I want to find food that reduces unneccessary carbs. I :: will eventually eat bread, pancakes, rice, cake, all those things. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: 350/316/Mar-315/200 :: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > There are several good LC breads....Sami's Bakery is my favorite. > > http://www.samisbakery.com/ those look like great products. i generally eat one of several "sprouted grain" breads. they're made without flour, and are significantly lower carb and higher fiber than regular bread. plus, they aren't made with weird chemicals or gluten, so they actually taste good. i think there are probably local varieties like this nearly everywhere in the US. my SO calls it "hippy bread". -kelly >:: jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote: >:: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >http://www.samisbakery.com/ I may try them., although I'm pretty happy with the Arnold's. I did notice that the LC 7-grain's nutritional info, doesn't add fiber in as a Carbohydrate. It is a NET 6g bread. >Whether I'm on OWL or >:: Maintenance I want to find food that reduces unneccessary carbs. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >:: 350/316/Mar-315/200 >:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/316/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 >The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk >food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That was the issue I had wanted to discuss when I started >this thread :) Okay, then here's my response to that statement, even though I feel I've made it plenty of times on this newsgroup: Low-carb is NOT a calorie reduction diet for everyone. Some people may take advantage of the appetite suppressing nature of LC to use it as a calorie reduction diet, but for many of us it's about carbohydrate control, not calories. Many of us who have passed through these halls have, in the past, been on low-fat and calorie-restrictive diets with varying degress of success and with a lot of misery. Those of us with insulin resistance find not only success on low-carb, but success at a higher intake of calories than on those diets -- some of us, like myself, on the same (or higher!) calorie intake as we were on before starting LC and eating a supposedly "sensible" grain-heavy diet. For people without insulin issues, LC can work for them as a calorie reduction diet. But there are other considerations for different people. Dawn >>The original point of my post had nothing to do with junk >>food. It was about when some people come onto this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Low-carb is NOT a calorie reduction diet for everyone. I addressed that in my original post. However, the point of my post has been missed, and it's become and fake foods vs real foods post. >Some people may >take advantage of the appetite suppressing nature of LC to use it as a >calorie reduction diet, That's the group I was referring to. People who come on this group and speak *to those who are using the LC diet for appetite suppression* and feel they are making some ground-breaking announcement by telling us that we are actually reducing calories, as if there were something WRONG with that, somehow. >Many of us who have passed through these halls have, in the past, been >on low-fat and calorie-restrictive diets with varying degress of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(or higher!) calorie intake as we were on before starting LC and >eating a supposedly "sensible" grain-heavy diet. Likewise, my own calorie threshold is increased. I can eat more calories *than I did on a high carb diet* and lose weight. However, it's still reduced in calories in this respect: Less calories than my body needs is going in without the agony of feeling deprived. (Difference is my metabolism is now higher). >For people without insulin issues, LC can work for them as a calorie >reduction diet. But there are other considerations for different >people. I've acknowledged this with you before, and again, this wasn't the point of my original post. The point was how trolls come on this group thinking they're going to shock us and surprise us by telling us that it's "really a low calorie diet". CM >I've acknowledged this with you before, and again, this wasn't the point >of my original post. The point was how trolls come on this group >thinking they're going to shock us and surprise us by telling us that >it's "really a low calorie diet". Oh. Okay. Sorry -- I didn't mean to be pedantic, honest. The subject comes up often enough from people who seem to think it's ONLY a nifty way to reduce calories that I just jumped all over it again. Mea culpa. Dawn :: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:12:00 GMT, Crafting Mom :: <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> announced in front of God and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] :: reduction diet. But there are other considerations for different :: people. But as a T2 (since age 23 - I'm now 45) -- supposedly full blown insulin resistant, LC works as a calorie reduction diet...if I don't restrict cals, I won't lose... Explain, please. >But as a T2 (since age 23 - I'm now 45) -- supposedly full blown insulin >resistant, LC works as a calorie reduction diet...if I don't restrict cals, >I won't lose... > >Explain, please. You've already lost a fair amount of weight, though, haven't you? It seems to me that a common pattern on low-carb is for people with a large amount of weight to lose are able to lose much of it without worrying about calories too much, but as their weight drops (and their caloric needs vis a vis calories-to-pound-of-weight) drop, they often need to consider calories as well. But they still seem to be able to eat at a higher calorie level than if they were on a low-fat diet. But really ... beats me. I'm not a nutritionist and, from what I've read lately, even if I was I probably wouldn't know. The theme of most nutritional research lately -- especially as regards weight loss -- seems to be Look How Much We Still Don't Understand About This sh.t. I think the biggest thing I've learned in the time I've been on this newsgroup is how much truth there is to the "your body, your science experiment" axiom. One of the NG's more regular past posters recently wrote in her LiveJournal about doing Lyle McDonald's Ultimate Training 2.0, hoping to drop about ten pounds she'd put back on . She followed it the letter, regular workouts, depletion workouts, strict dieting, scheduled refeeds ... and couldn't drop a single pound. There's simply no reason for that, and yet -- nuthin'. My point in arguing the incessant "it's really all about calories!" posts is that, for some people, it's not. It's amazing and mysterious how very, very differently our bodies metabolize nutrients and store fat. There's a lot we just don't know, there's no magic bullet, and there's no one-size-fits-all owner's manual. Much as we wish there was. Dawn :: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:32:18 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> announced in front of God and everybody: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: You've already lost a fair amount of weight, though, haven't you? yep.. It :: seems to me that a common pattern on low-carb is for people with a :: large amount of weight to lose are able to lose much of it without :: worrying about calories too much, but as their weight drops (and :: their caloric needs vis a vis calories-to-pound-of-weight) drop, :: they often :: need to consider calories as well. I don't need to count -- I count because I like to...I feel it puts me in full control...removes the random nature of hit-n-miss. But they still seem to be able to :: eat at a higher calorie level than if they were on a low-fat diet. Well, that may yet be true for me....when I did low-fat over 10 years ago, I lost 100 lbs then, too...but I recall eating a LOT of food...but i also did a LOT of exercise....so much so that I just don't want to do that much now...it was crazy..one thing that LC really does for me is that I can eat WAY LESS food....heck, I can even fast now...and I've lost more on LC with less exercise than I did on LF...I can't say if I eat less calorie wise, but volume wise I'm certain I do. :: But really ... beats me. I'm not a nutritionist and, Well, I'd trust your comments before 90% of the nutritionists you'd find around.... from what I've :: read lately, even if I was I probably wouldn't know. The theme of :: most nutritional research lately -- especially as regards weight :: loss -- :: seems to be Look How Much We Still Don't Understand About This sh.t. Right...and that is truly amazing....it's a wonder anybody loses a pound... :: I think the biggest thing I've learned in the time I've been on this :: newsgroup is how much truth there is to the "your body, your science :: experiment" axiom. I agree. I'm still experimenting... One of the NG's more regular past posters recently :: wrote in her LiveJournal about doing Lyle McDonald's Ultimate :: Training [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: simply :: no reason for that, and yet -- nuthin'. That would be Nina....I did UD2 also and didn't lose anything, but i'm sure I just ate too much on the depletion days and on the carbup days (I don't know LBM so I was just guessing on the eating part -- but I did the workout parts faithfully). If/when I do it again, I'll just cut calories more. I'm sure I can get weight loss if I go down to 1200 kcals/day with cardio on the depletion days and then limit things on the carbup days. :: My point in arguing the incessant "it's really all about calories!" :: posts is that, for some people, it's not. It's amazing and mysterious :: how very, very differently our bodies metabolize nutrients and store :: fat. True....I just wish I could understand the markers for it not being about calories...you know, I've read that both weight training and cardio decrease insulin resistant...and since I do both and have lost almost 130 lbs, perhaps I'm just not as insulin resistant as I used to be...I'm not on meds any more as a T2...maybe that factors in too. There's a lot we just don't know, there's no magic bullet, and :: there's no one-size-fits-all owner's manual. Much as we wish there :: was. No sh.t. >Those of us with insulin resistance >find not only success on low-carb, but success at a higher intake of >calories than on those diets -- some of us, like myself, on the same >(or higher!) calorie intake as we were on before starting LC and >eating a supposedly "sensible" grain-heavy diet. I'm IR, and this is the absolute truth for me. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/220/140 & hubby- 310/239/180 jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c3cfon$1v3voo$2@ID-220452.news.uni- berlin.de: > My point was that the demand for these products seems to be quite high > even among people who post regularly. There obviously is a demand, but I think the people who use that stuff are the same ones who've drunk diet sodas all day and eaten Snackwells by the box for years--instead of having the self control to enjoy small portions of the real stuff from time to time. IOW, they don't get it, and it's not necessarily a failure of the eating plan they're ostensibly following (even if it's low-fat). It's a failure to make a real commitment to change. Cate > jmk <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c3cfon$1v3voo$2@ID-220452.news.uni- > berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > plan they're ostensibly following (even if it's low-fat). It's a failure to > make a real commitment to change. <VBG> Agreed. Although part of me says that they *did* change -- from low-fat junk food to low-carb junk food! Signaturejmk in NC :: On 3/17/2004 10:48 PM, metta wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :: or :: faux that. That usually has to do with people not having enough experience to know how to prepare interesting dishes to provide variety. Remember, most of the people who do atkins were formerly high carb eating folks, and adjusting to a new woe takes time. However, once one learns enough about various things to eat, the deprivation ends mostly. I don't think that means that folks won't sometimes want something they really like. And in truth, any time you restrict calories, a certain amount of deprivation comes along because you can't do what you used to do. Over time, people get use to it, mostly. Hence, while there is deprivation, there is not agony. Why is there such a market for low carb chocolates, :: desserts, shakes, and other junk foods (like the forthcoming Doritos :: that have been discussed here repeatedly), etc. if people don't feel :: deprived? Again, variety is the spice of life. If people would be willing to count calories as well as carbs, then they an incorporate almost anything into this WOE. Of course, the junk food thing is mostly because if ignorance, imo. People get this notion that only carbs count, and they can eat junk as long as it is low carb. Again, a basic awareness that calories count would solve that problem too. > :: On 3/17/2004 10:48 PM, metta wrote: > ::: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > long as it is low carb. Again, a basic awareness that calories count would > solve that problem too. I'm not sure that I agree with your statements, Roger. Some of the folks who do these reviews and so on have been on this NG for a long time. Heck, just look at the extended threads on Russell Stover and ZCarb. For the purpose of this discussion, I am referring to the specific statements from Atkins -- "With Atkins, you'll get the results you've dreamed of, without the agony of deprivation." Then again, Atkins does market a bunch of this food... That seems a little bit disingenuous as well :-/ Signaturejmk in NC :: On 3/18/2004 11:04 AM, Roger Zoul wrote: ::: jmk wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] :: time. Heck, just look at the extended threads on Russell Stover and :: ZCarb. But for some folks, they can eat LC candy without problems in terms of cravings. So, these products do have a place, even though it mostly seems that they are overused by people looking to eat junk because it is marked "low carb", as in a "free pass" food. Only education can address that problem. Most oldbies know better, I think. :: For the purpose of this discussion, I am referring to the specific :: statements from Atkins -- "With Atkins, you'll get the results you've :: dreamed of, without the agony of deprivation." But it says "without the agony of deprivation"...that's not the same thing, in my mind, as having such limited food choices that you're going crazy -- as in agony. Right now, I wish I could dig into a big jug of almonds...so am I deprived because I'm not going to do that? (I'm always ready to eat almonds, btw, but I don't because I want to lose weight more than I want to pig out on almonds) Not getting everything you want is not the same as deprivation and it certainly isn't agony. :: Then again, Atkins does market a bunch of this food... That seems a :: little bit disingenuous as well :-/ True. Exactly. :-) -- Cheri Type 2, no meds for now. >won't sometimes want something they really like. And in truth, any time you >restrict calories, a certain amount of deprivation comes along because you >can't do what you used to do. Over time, people get use to it, mostly. >Hence, while there is deprivation, there is not agony. | But people in this group obviously *do* feel deprived. If they did not | feel deprived, why would they constantly be searching for faux this or | faux that. Why is there such a market for low carb chocolates, | desserts, shakes, and other junk foods (like the forthcoming Doritos | that have been discussed here repeatedly), etc. if people don't feel | deprived? Same reason people chew gum or toothpicks when they quit smoking. Because eating is more than a mechanical body function; more than a biological means of sustaining life. We're built in a way that makes eating a pleasurable experience, and Pavlov proved long ago that we become subconsiously conditioned to respond a certain way to pleaurable stimulii, even when the reward for the stimulus is removed. IOW, old habits die hard. --- Peter 270/228/180 |
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.