Atkins Diet

"OceanView" wrote in message
...
ostpile (Sarandipidy) wrote in
:


Exactly. I looked in our grocery store and could not find
real 100% whole grain bread. All that bread was fake.

you guys should be eating ezekiel or spelt bread. both are
in the health section, far away from the regular breads.
neither will be fluffy or sweet like the 'fake' ones, but
they are much better for you.

sara

hello teacher tell me what's my lesson,
look right through me, look right through me.

Why does this sound like I should riding a camel across the
desert while eating this bread?

Yes, camel riding is good exercise and part of a healthy lifestyle.
Y'all can find ezekiel and french meadow speltr breads in the freezer
section of the health food section at the larger supermarkets - I can find
it at Kroger, Safeway and Publix (US)...
Jen

"janice" wrote in message
...
One of the things that I've noticed here recently is a tendency for a
small number of supermarket fresh but pre-packaged foods (chicken,
fish, etc.) to say "see reverse of label for nutritional information".
Of course, this means you can't read it till you get the pack home and
open it, so needless to say I don't buy these goods. I hope this
trend isn't going to grow, and I really think I should write to the
supermarket(s) concerned to tell them what I think about it. IMO
information you can't read in the shop before you decide whether to
purchase is worse than useless.

janice

As an aside... did you know that farm raised salmon is not naturally pink?
They color the salmon here. We never would have thought that they would put
coloring into fresh fish at the market, but my boyfriend found out quickly
as he is severly allergic to food coloring.
-Jen

"Aquarijen" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

I couldn't find a link with counties of Ohio but this is for the entire
state. Ohio is no better off than many other states in general obesity
category. I'm sure the obesity rate varies from community to community
based on the availability of several things - exercise opportunities,
food
sources, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/4zv8b

That's very interesting. We (US) seem to have a "fat belt" - a stripe of
states where more than 22% of the population is obese... I live in
Tennessee. I can tell you that many of us here are large. I have been
impressed, though, lately to see more healthy choices in the stores. I
wish
we had a Trader Joe's -- we have a "Wild Oats" healthfood supermarket, but
it is expensive. I have taken to preparing meals ahead of time - I like
making stew and freezing it in containers - then I always have "brainless"
food I can eat and know I am making a good choice. I bake bread for my
son
who is allergic to gluten and dairy - I freeze it also and it tastes
pretty
good. I like to use buckwheat and oats.
Laters...
Jen

I didn't notice the 'fat belt' until you mentioned it. It makes you wonder
why.

My ex was from Tennessee and based on what I saw his family eat I can
understandg They had to have biscuits, gravy, bacon, sausage and eggs for
breakfast. Those biscuits and gravy were served at lunch and dinner, too.
Everything was fried or prepared in lots of butter. I must say though that
I did love his mother's vegetables as they were usually straight from the
garden and she normally put a few aside for me before she smothered them in
butter. Now she could have skipped the fried okra, too. I could make a
meal on nothing but the sliced tomatoes, cucumbers and onions.

The supermarkets in the area are beginning to stock healthier items as many
of the specialy stores have taken some of their business. I still prefer to
buy certain items at Trader Joe's as they are less expensive. I was
surprised the first time I shopped there as I was expecting it to be more
expensive than the supermarket.

Beverly

Lictor wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Certain people do in fact have cravings triggered by certain foods
because they are intolerant of those foods.

I don't really buy into the whole intolerance/allergy thing.

For centuries folks in Europe didn't buy into the whole spherical
Earth thing, either. Hard experimental data eventually changed
their minds. You stress psychological treatment and that's a
good approach, but for many it completely fails because cravings
have a physical cause in those people. No amount of talking
over your troubles will remove a physical cause.

It seems half the people are allergic to food nowadays.

Alternately people are now healthy enough or knowledgible
enough to be able to figure it out. One by one the causes of
illness are being removed. Bacertia, viruses, pollution.

It's likely that many people have always had food intolerances
but there were so many illnesses from other causes and so
many other problems that no one noticed. This isn't fatal
peanut or shellfish allergies we're discussing here, it's
something as subtle as eating a common food and ending up
much more hungry rather than less hungry. Who would ever
think that eating a certain food would ever make someone
more hungry until you remove enough distractions like cholera
that you can afford that much attention to detail?

Here's an interesting point that you'll likely sympathize
with: It seems half the people are getting their foods from
very few sources these days. When people had to eat the
local meats and vegitables, and there were 100s of varieties
of local veggies, and all they had other than that was other
local products, people had so much variety they never focused
on any one food until they could see an intolerance.

If you don't own a cow you may only have cheese a couple of
times per month and you'd never notice a dairy intollerance.
Now with 2 dairy helpings per day recommended by the
government there *is* a chance to find one. Now with vast
amounts of pasta made from refined flour recommended by the
USDA Food Pyramid there *is* a chance to find a wheat
intolerance.

I think it's solving more fatal problems to make intolerance
issues visible combined with reduced variety making them
more prominant that's brought food intolerances to the
attention of many.

Either we don't build them as strong as we used to, or we're
facing an epidemia of hypondriacs on top of the obesity one.

When you have to worry about dying of typhus that's on a
different scale than noticing that if you ever manage to
get a loaf of white wheat bread rather than your usual
half loaf of dark rye, the white bread makes you more hungry
not less hungry. After all, hunger was a constant fact in the
lives of many for millenia, so wha tif there's more or less of
it.

By adding one food at a time and noting your own body's reaction,
then declining to readd foods that trigger a bad reaction, Atkins
and other isolation systems remove an entire set of binge triggers

Well, I guess I'm among the minority of people who are not allergic to
anything then.

Alternately you haven't been willing to put in the effort to
practice an isolation system to find out. It is a lot of work
and you don't believe it's valid in the first place. So you
could easily be intollerant of some food without knowing it.
We aren't talking about fatal peanut or shellfish allergies here.

Do you have any study on that btw? I don't mean statistics, because in that
case the psychological interactions are too high. I mean real studies.

Large amounts of annecdotal evidence at this point. Several
weight loss plans include isolation systems and those plans
remain popular so clearly it's a strategy that works for
some people.

Whole-Atkins and other isolation system plans
handle this physical source of binges.

Why would you crave something you're allergic too? Why should eating it
raise your hunger?

It's actually a well known phenomenom called "self innoculation"
that can be found in wild animals in addition to humans. Some
food is mildly toxic but it is also common in an animal's area.
To deal with exposure to the mild toxin the body needs to
develop its defenses. Since the toxin is mild those defenses
fade quickly. So as a protection against a time of eating a
very large dosage, the animal will eat constant dosages of
the food in question to maintain resistance. This pattern of
behavior can appear addictive or obessive if it ends up
running out of control. The feedback loop to maintain a
constant low exposure can be overwhlemed by being fed the same
food again and again like by a human master or like by the USDA
Food Pyramid.

And most of all, why should it not trigger the usual
allergic reaction? I mean, real food allergies are *bad*,

There are levels of intolerance. Some will point out that
the word "allergy" has a very specific meaning and food
intolerances don't fit it. Okay, that's why the word
intolerances comes up in discussions of the topic. The
word "allegy" is used loosely to refer to all levels of
intolerance and that's not technically correct.

you usually notice them...

Why? Think about it. When's the last time you went 14+
days without eating any wheat whatsoever? Because of this
eating wheat sets up what is "normal" for you. It's been
like that your entire life so you don't know there even IS
a normal that's different. Eating certain foods sets up a
background that isn't noticed.

Before going on Atkins I just knew that my appetite went
up and down. I tried to figure out why, but until Atkins
told me to go a couple of months without grain, wheat was
just a part of the background for me. I never even
considered it might be wheat. Who ever has problems from
eating toast? Who ever thinks of it? Same with eggs or
dairy or whatever food you eat almost every day of your
life.

When I was eating wheat regularly it didn't matter in the
least whether I felt full
or not, I had cravings that didn't stop even when I was
uncomfortably stuffed.

Yes, that's what all binger experience. Yet, I can eat the
same things I used to binge on. Did I cure my allergy on my own?

Thresholds and immune response actions. When you stop
dosaging yourself with the antigen your immune system reduces
its reaction. Less innoculation, less response. If you
now eat the binge trigger foods *much* less often your immune
system does not get a chance to trigger an addiction-like
reaction.

I am now 5 years into Atkins. In the first couple of years
exposure to small amounts of wheat gave me imeediate and
large reactions. Over time the intensity of reaction has
decreased. Five years in, if I get accidentally dosed with
a little wheat in some cream soup, it may give me indigestion
and sweat in my scalp, but that small amount no longer
triggers a binge. Wanna bet if I let myself believe that
I'm "cured" and start dosing myself regularly with wheat
whether the old symptoms will come back?

I think you're missing the time scale dynamics of the
issue. Food intolerances aren't something that you can
"cure" as in no longer have the problem. Restore constant
innoculation and your body will ramp up its reaction again.
Food intolerances are something that you can "cure" as in
no longer make any medication and no longer have any symptoms.
In the case of food intolerances folks can reduce their
reaction to the point where a single serving won't trigger
a binge, but woe unto he who resumes constant helpings
again.

The fact that Atkins works isn't a proof.

Medical issues are rarely subject to proof in your sense.
Consider the scenario I describe above. If you used to
get a binge when you ate a specific food (not binge on,
binge because of) you can always start eating that food
every day again for a few months and see if your binge
urges return. Your body, your science experiment, but I
bet you a bottle of water if you do it the binge urges
will return.

Putting a strong "medical" taboo on a problematic food
will make resisting bingeing much easier, since you
now have a totem invested of some higher power (science,
astrology, Dr Atkins wisdom...) to fight it off with. For
some people, this is plenty
enough to completely burry their cravings.

Psychological explanation for a physical cause. If the
binges had a physical trigger, talking won't help. If the
binges have a physical trigger avoiding that trigger will
help. If talking helps avoidance then talking is an
unixed good, but talking isn't the solution.

The carb counting half of Atkins handles binges that
are triggered by blood sugar swings.

I somehow have troubles to understand this one, since I did have pretty
strong blood sugar swings (Pradin used on rapidly diminishing
insulino-resistance). They didn't cause any binge.

Different person, different symptom.

Or for that matter any craving, hypoglycemia always made me
felt nauseous, not hungry. But maybe some people do get the
hungry version. I have however troubles to understand
how it can get you so hungry that you start bingeing.

The physical reaction is adrenaline release. You interpret
that with nausea. Others interpret it with hunger. You have
a better interpretation IMO.

Keep your carb intake low enough to prevent
any new fat from entering storage (under CCLM during Maintenance)
or to stay in ketosis (under CCLL during OWL) and your blood sugar
stays stable enough that you don't get hypoglycemic events.

Losing weight works pretty well too, since it reduces insulino-resistance
which will smooth the swings and spikes (unless you already have a well
advanced diabete).

Chicken and egg. Keeping blood sugar under contol helps weight
loss. Losing weight helps keep blood sugar under control. Both
effects are desirable, and either can cause the other. So the
problem is finding the best cause and effect to do both easily.

Eating a snicker bar does nothing to me now except bring
satiety for a while (and feeling way too sweet, don't really like them
anymore).

Five years ago eating a candy bar was a big problem for me.
Now it's a smaller problem though still a problem. I'm some
more hungry the next day now compared to much more hungry
the next hour years ago. Low carbing is helping my reaction
to sugary foods, as long as I keep low carbing. I am sure if
I turn up my carb intake that will change, but I haven't done
that science experiement on my body to be certain.

Lictor wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Certain people do in fact have cravings triggered by certain foods
because they are intolerant of those foods.

I don't really buy into the whole intolerance/allergy thing.

For centuries folks in Europe didn't buy into the whole spherical
Earth thing, either. Hard experimental data eventually changed
their minds. You stress psychological treatment and that's a
good approach, but for many it completely fails because cravings
have a physical cause in those people. No amount of talking
over your troubles will remove a physical cause.

It seems half the people are allergic to food nowadays.

Alternately people are now healthy enough or knowledgible
enough to be able to figure it out. One by one the causes of
illness are being removed. Bacertia, viruses, pollution.

It's likely that many people have always had food intolerances
but there were so many illnesses from other causes and so
many other problems that no one noticed. This isn't fatal
peanut or shellfish allergies we're discussing here, it's
something as subtle as eating a common food and ending up
much more hungry rather than less hungry. Who would ever
think that eating a certain food would ever make someone
more hungry until you remove enough distractions like cholera
that you can afford that much attention to detail?

Here's an interesting point that you'll likely sympathize
with: It seems half the people are getting their foods from
very few sources these days. When people had to eat the
local meats and vegitables, and there were 100s of varieties
of local veggies, and all they had other than that was other
local products, people had so much variety they never focused
on any one food until they could see an intolerance.

If you don't own a cow you may only have cheese a couple of
times per month and you'd never notice a dairy intollerance.
Now with 2 dairy helpings per day recommended by the
government there *is* a chance to find one. Now with vast
amounts of pasta made from refined flour recommended by the
USDA Food Pyramid there *is* a chance to find a wheat
intolerance.

I think it's solving more fatal problems to make intolerance
issues visible combined with reduced variety making them
more prominant that's brought food intolerances to the
attention of many.

Either we don't build them as strong as we used to, or we're
facing an epidemia of hypondriacs on top of the obesity one.

When you have to worry about dying of typhus that's on a
different scale than noticing that if you ever manage to
get a loaf of white wheat bread rather than your usual
half loaf of dark rye, the white bread makes you more hungry
not less hungry. After all, hunger was a constant fact in the
lives of many for millenia, so wha tif there's more or less of
it.

By adding one food at a time and noting your own body's reaction,
then declining to readd foods that trigger a bad reaction, Atkins
and other isolation systems remove an entire set of binge triggers

Well, I guess I'm among the minority of people who are not allergic to
anything then.

Alternately you haven't been willing to put in the effort to
practice an isolation system to find out. It is a lot of work
and you don't believe it's valid in the first place. So you
could easily be intollerant of some food without knowing it.
We aren't talking about fatal peanut or shellfish allergies here.

Do you have any study on that btw? I don't mean statistics, because in that
case the psychological interactions are too high. I mean real studies.

Large amounts of annecdotal evidence at this point. Several
weight loss plans include isolation systems and those plans
remain popular so clearly it's a strategy that works for
some people.

Whole-Atkins and other isolation system plans
handle this physical source of binges.

Why would you crave something you're allergic too? Why should eating it
raise your hunger?

It's actually a well known phenomenom called "self innoculation"
that can be found in wild animals in addition to humans. Some
food is mildly toxic but it is also common in an animal's area.
To deal with exposure to the mild toxin the body needs to
develop its defenses. Since the toxin is mild those defenses
fade quickly. So as a protection against a time of eating a
very large dosage, the animal will eat constant dosages of
the food in question to maintain resistance. This pattern of
behavior can appear addictive or obessive if it ends up
running out of control. The feedback loop to maintain a
constant low exposure can be overwhlemed by being fed the same
food again and again like by a human master or like by the USDA
Food Pyramid.

And most of all, why should it not trigger the usual
allergic reaction? I mean, real food allergies are *bad*,

There are levels of intolerance. Some will point out that
the word "allergy" has a very specific meaning and food
intolerances don't fit it. Okay, that's why the word
intolerances comes up in discussions of the topic. The
word "allegy" is used loosely to refer to all levels of
intolerance and that's not technically correct.

you usually notice them...

Why? Think about it. When's the last time you went 14+
days without eating any wheat whatsoever? Because of this
eating wheat sets up what is "normal" for you. It's been
like that your entire life so you don't know there even IS
a normal that's different. Eating certain foods sets up a
background that isn't noticed.

Before going on Atkins I just knew that my appetite went
up and down. I tried to figure out why, but until Atkins
told me to go a couple of months without grain, wheat was
just a part of the background for me. I never even
considered it might be wheat. Who ever has problems from
eating toast? Who ever thinks of it? Same with eggs or
dairy or whatever food you eat almost every day of your
life.

When I was eating wheat regularly it didn't matter in the
least whether I felt full
or not, I had cravings that didn't stop even when I was
uncomfortably stuffed.

Yes, that's what all binger experience. Yet, I can eat the
same things I used to binge on. Did I cure my allergy on my own?

Thresholds and immune response actions. When you stop
dosaging yourself with the antigen your immune system reduces
its reaction. Less innoculation, less response. If you
now eat the binge trigger foods *much* less often your immune
system does not get a chance to trigger an addiction-like
reaction.

I am now 5 years into Atkins. In the first couple of years
exposure to small amounts of wheat gave me imeediate and
large reactions. Over time the intensity of reaction has
decreased. Five years in, if I get accidentally dosed with
a little wheat in some cream soup, it may give me indigestion
and sweat in my scalp, but that small amount no longer
triggers a binge. Wanna bet if I let myself believe that
I'm "cured" and start dosing myself regularly with wheat
whether the old symptoms will come back?

I think you're missing the time scale dynamics of the
issue. Food intolerances aren't something that you can
"cure" as in no longer have the problem. Restore constant
innoculation and your body will ramp up its reaction again.
Food intolerances are something that you can "cure" as in
no longer make any medication and no longer have any symptoms.
In the case of food intolerances folks can reduce their
reaction to the point where a single serving won't trigger
a binge, but woe unto he who resumes constant helpings
again.

The fact that Atkins works isn't a proof.

Medical issues are rarely subject to proof in your sense.
Consider the scenario I describe above. If you used to
get a binge when you ate a specific food (not binge on,
binge because of) you can always start eating that food
every day again for a few months and see if your binge
urges return. Your body, your science experiment, but I
bet you a bottle of water if you do it the binge urges
will return.

Putting a strong "medical" taboo on a problematic food
will make resisting bingeing much easier, since you
now have a totem invested of some higher power (science,
astrology, Dr Atkins wisdom...) to fight it off with. For
some people, this is plenty
enough to completely burry their cravings.

Psychological explanation for a physical cause. If the
binges had a physical trigger, talking won't help. If the
binges have a physical trigger avoiding that trigger will
help. If talking helps avoidance then talking is an
unixed good, but talking isn't the solution.

The carb counting half of Atkins handles binges that
are triggered by blood sugar swings.

I somehow have troubles to understand this one, since I did have pretty
strong blood sugar swings (Pradin used on rapidly diminishing
insulino-resistance). They didn't cause any binge.

Different person, different symptom.

Or for that matter any craving, hypoglycemia always made me
felt nauseous, not hungry. But maybe some people do get the
hungry version. I have however troubles to understand
how it can get you so hungry that you start bingeing.

The physical reaction is adrenaline release. You interpret
that with nausea. Others interpret it with hunger. You have
a better interpretation IMO.

Keep your carb intake low enough to prevent
any new fat from entering storage (under CCLM during Maintenance)
or to stay in ketosis (under CCLL during OWL) and your blood sugar
stays stable enough that you don't get hypoglycemic events.

Losing weight works pretty well too, since it reduces insulino-resistance
which will smooth the swings and spikes (unless you already have a well
advanced diabete).

Chicken and egg. Keeping blood sugar under contol helps weight
loss. Losing weight helps keep blood sugar under control. Both
effects are desirable, and either can cause the other. So the
problem is finding the best cause and effect to do both easily.

Eating a snicker bar does nothing to me now except bring
satiety for a while (and feeling way too sweet, don't really like them
anymore).

Five years ago eating a candy bar was a big problem for me.
Now it's a smaller problem though still a problem. I'm some
more hungry the next day now compared to much more hungry
the next hour years ago. Low carbing is helping my reaction
to sugary foods, as long as I keep low carbing. I am sure if
I turn up my carb intake that will change, but I haven't done
that science experiement on my body to be certain.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
Barry Walker wrote:

What's the general consensus here on the Atkins Diet, or any low-carb
diet?

That you should try alt.support.diet.low-carb

Good or bad?

Any plan you can stick to is good.

Better than a low-fat diet?

Most recent studies claim it works 4% faster in the first 6
months then the same as low fat. Translation - neither is
actually better.

Most folks claim that they are hungry on low fat and not
hungry on low carb, but *most* is not *all*. Translation -
Try one and see how you do. If you get constant hunger
switch to the other.

"Better" isn't a question that can be answered for everyone.
People are too different. Maybe low carb works better for
a larger percentage than low fat but the difference isn't
all that large to be a guarantee.

Anyone here on a low-carb diet?


Low carbing doesn't work for me, even worse I gain weight on it.
When I eat 1600 kcals a day and exercise and go under my drs supervision, I
still gain weight.
I am male and 200 pounds in weight, and even take thyroxin to try to help
with a bit of weight loss.
I expect that it is down to the individual component foods that we eat that
really matters.
Try to discover what makes you gain weight and don't do it!




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
Barry Walker wrote:

What's the general consensus here on the Atkins Diet, or any low-carb
diet?

That you should try alt.support.diet.low-carb

Good or bad?

Any plan you can stick to is good.

Better than a low-fat diet?

Most recent studies claim it works 4% faster in the first 6
months then the same as low fat. Translation - neither is
actually better.

Most folks claim that they are hungry on low fat and not
hungry on low carb, but *most* is not *all*. Translation -
Try one and see how you do. If you get constant hunger
switch to the other.

"Better" isn't a question that can be answered for everyone.
People are too different. Maybe low carb works better for
a larger percentage than low fat but the difference isn't
all that large to be a guarantee.

Anyone here on a low-carb diet?


Low carbing doesn't work for me, even worse I gain weight on it.
When I eat 1600 kcals a day and exercise and go under my drs supervision, I
still gain weight.
I am male and 200 pounds in weight, and even take thyroxin to try to help
with a bit of weight loss.
I expect that it is down to the individual component foods that we eat that
really matters.
Try to discover what makes you gain weight and don't do it!




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
Barry Walker wrote:

What's the general consensus here on the Atkins Diet, or any low-carb
diet?

That you should try alt.support.diet.low-carb

Good or bad?

Any plan you can stick to is good.

Better than a low-fat diet?

Most recent studies claim it works 4% faster in the first 6
months then the same as low fat. Translation - neither is
actually better.

Most folks claim that they are hungry on low fat and not
hungry on low carb, but *most* is not *all*. Translation -
Try one and see how you do. If you get constant hunger
switch to the other.

"Better" isn't a question that can be answered for everyone.
People are too different. Maybe low carb works better for
a larger percentage than low fat but the difference isn't
all that large to be a guarantee.

Anyone here on a low-carb diet?


Low carbing doesn't work for me, even worse I gain weight on it.
When I eat 1600 kcals a day and exercise and go under my drs supervision, I
still gain weight.
I am male and 200 pounds in weight, and even take thyroxin to try to help
with a bit of weight loss.
I expect that it is down to the individual component foods that we eat that
really matters.
Try to discover what makes you gain weight and don't do it!




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

MartB wrote:

Low carbing doesn't work for me, even worse I gain weight on it.
When I eat 1600 kcals a day and exercise and go under my drs supervision, I
still gain weight.
I am male and 200 pounds in weight, and even take thyroxin to try to help
with a bit of weight loss.
I expect that it is down to the individual component foods that we eat that
really matters.

Ever hear the term "FFID"?

Dally

MartB wrote:

Low carbing doesn't work for me, even worse I gain weight on it.
When I eat 1600 kcals a day and exercise and go under my drs supervision, I
still gain weight.
I am male and 200 pounds in weight, and even take thyroxin to try to help
with a bit of weight loss.
I expect that it is down to the individual component foods that we eat that
really matters.

Ever hear the term "FFID"?

Dally