Back from being lost at sea (long report)

On 9/15/04 1:00 AM, in article , "Roger
Zoul" wrote:

Not only that, but low cal eating on low carb is the best way to do it for
most, because of appetite suppression. Doing low cal on low fat would be a
nightmare for most.

This is actually a point I would dispute right now - at least for me. I even
mentioned it in my first (long) posting.

The first 4 or 5 days of "low cal, ignoring carbs" were *very* hard to stay
on. I did, in fact, have big food cravings. That is probably the reason I
fell off the wagon like 6 or 7 times since I got back in July and started
and stopped the diet and switched back and forth so much.

But after 5 days, appetite suppression very much like Atkins appetite
suppression seemed to kick in! I was surprised. I find myself eating things
like heat-up pasta or rice dishes (122 calories to 258 calories per meal) or
even a banana or ear of corn and they do NOT seem to be causing carb
cravings afterwards!

I am wondering now what the deal is.

I still don't eat large carb portions, as you can imagine from the calories
I mentioned above. The reason I avoid them is not because of the carbs but
because the "calories per volume" in something like rice just doesn't seem
worth it for the satisfaction received. So I seem to be naturally steering
away from *large* rice and pasta and other carb portions. For that same
reason I haven't eaten any bread. Two slices of toast at 150 calories (with
no butter - too caloric!) just doesn't sound filling enough to be worth the
calories.

So maybe that is it? Maybe by counting calories I am just naturally keeping
carbs down to a level that is preventing carb cravings?

doug

I'll check that out. You dip the strips into your blood or something like
that? ugh!

doug

On 9/15/04 7:55 AM, in article ,
"Jenny" wrote:

Get someone in the US to mail you an $8 Relion meter from Wal-Mart and a $40
box of 100 strips and start testing your blood sugar 1 hour after you eat a
food.

I'll check that out. You dip the strips into your blood or something like
that? ugh!

doug

On 9/15/04 7:55 AM, in article ,
"Jenny" wrote:

Get someone in the US to mail you an $8 Relion meter from Wal-Mart and a $40
box of 100 strips and start testing your blood sugar 1 hour after you eat a
food.

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 12:02 AM, in article ,
|| "Roger Zoul" wrote:
||
||| Years at a time? If the objective is to low weight (the main
||| reason for a low cal diet) then there is no need to do it for years
||| at a time.
||
|| That I would disagree with you. If the objective is to lose and also
|| *maintain* the low weight you have to stay on low-cal *forever*.
|| Presumably that is years. At least I hope so.

No....low cal is eating significantly below your maintenance (various slants
would be not restricting any food group, or restricting fat, or restricting
carbs, but it's all low cal)....as you lose weight, your maintenance
lowers. So, as long as you're not forever losing weight, you're not going
to always be doing low cal. Your weight loss slows if you don't continue to
drop cals. Finally, you will drift towards your maintenance calories -
which is NOT low cal. The sad truth is that you won't be able to eat like
your (not you specifically) fat self.

||
||| Perhaps
||| you need to lose the notion that low carb means high calorie. It's
||| not true.
||
|| I can see a low-glycemic diet being low calorie. But I honestly
|| cannot see a really low-carb - like 30 gm or less - being low
|| calorie. At least not something liveable for the rest of your life,
|| which is what I'm talking about.

Perhaps that is why you're having problems following LC -- you think of it
as a high cal diet and hence you eat too much. It also seems as though your
notion of what a low cal diet is is a bit twisted. What is low cal for me,
at 240, is not low cal for someone who weighs 120.

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 12:02 AM, in article ,
|| "Roger Zoul" wrote:
||
||| Years at a time? If the objective is to low weight (the main
||| reason for a low cal diet) then there is no need to do it for years
||| at a time.
||
|| That I would disagree with you. If the objective is to lose and also
|| *maintain* the low weight you have to stay on low-cal *forever*.
|| Presumably that is years. At least I hope so.

No....low cal is eating significantly below your maintenance (various slants
would be not restricting any food group, or restricting fat, or restricting
carbs, but it's all low cal)....as you lose weight, your maintenance
lowers. So, as long as you're not forever losing weight, you're not going
to always be doing low cal. Your weight loss slows if you don't continue to
drop cals. Finally, you will drift towards your maintenance calories -
which is NOT low cal. The sad truth is that you won't be able to eat like
your (not you specifically) fat self.

||
||| Perhaps
||| you need to lose the notion that low carb means high calorie. It's
||| not true.
||
|| I can see a low-glycemic diet being low calorie. But I honestly
|| cannot see a really low-carb - like 30 gm or less - being low
|| calorie. At least not something liveable for the rest of your life,
|| which is what I'm talking about.

Perhaps that is why you're having problems following LC -- you think of it
as a high cal diet and hence you eat too much. It also seems as though your
notion of what a low cal diet is is a bit twisted. What is low cal for me,
at 240, is not low cal for someone who weighs 120.

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 12:39 AM, in article
|| , "Luna"
|| wrote:
||
|||| Because with very low carbs the only foods left are higher fat,
|||| thus higher calorie, foods.
||||
|||| doug
||||
|||
||| Not true. An egg, for example, generally has less than 100
||| calories.
||| Three eggs is a filling meal. A grilled chicken breast is low-fat,
||| as are many low-carb vegetables. I was easily able to stay under
||| 1500 calories and 20-30g carbs.
||
|| Maybe I should clarify. I would add "with reasonable variety and
|| something you can maintain for the rest of your life".

Do you want to lose weight or not? It is possible to have a lot of variety
on a low-cal, low carb diet. Again, as you lower your body weight your
requirement for food decreases. If it doesn't, then you're guaranteed to
regain the weight if you don't offset those calories by exercise.

||
|| doug

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 12:39 AM, in article
|| , "Luna"
|| wrote:
||
|||| Because with very low carbs the only foods left are higher fat,
|||| thus higher calorie, foods.
||||
|||| doug
||||
|||
||| Not true. An egg, for example, generally has less than 100
||| calories.
||| Three eggs is a filling meal. A grilled chicken breast is low-fat,
||| as are many low-carb vegetables. I was easily able to stay under
||| 1500 calories and 20-30g carbs.
||
|| Maybe I should clarify. I would add "with reasonable variety and
|| something you can maintain for the rest of your life".

Do you want to lose weight or not? It is possible to have a lot of variety
on a low-cal, low carb diet. Again, as you lower your body weight your
requirement for food decreases. If it doesn't, then you're guaranteed to
regain the weight if you don't offset those calories by exercise.

||
|| doug

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 12:39 AM, in article
|| , "Luna"
|| wrote:
||
|||| Because with very low carbs the only foods left are higher fat,
|||| thus higher calorie, foods.
||||
|||| doug
||||
|||
||| Not true. An egg, for example, generally has less than 100
||| calories.
||| Three eggs is a filling meal. A grilled chicken breast is low-fat,
||| as are many low-carb vegetables. I was easily able to stay under
||| 1500 calories and 20-30g carbs.
||
|| Maybe I should clarify. I would add "with reasonable variety and
|| something you can maintain for the rest of your life".

Do you want to lose weight or not? It is possible to have a lot of variety
on a low-cal, low carb diet. Again, as you lower your body weight your
requirement for food decreases. If it doesn't, then you're guaranteed to
regain the weight if you don't offset those calories by exercise.

||
|| doug

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 1:00 AM, in article ,
|| "Roger Zoul" wrote:
||
||| Not only that, but low cal eating on low carb is the best way to do
||| it for most, because of appetite suppression. Doing low cal on low
||| fat would be a nightmare for most.
||
|| This is actually a point I would dispute right now - at least for
|| me. I even mentioned it in my first (long) posting.
||
|| The first 4 or 5 days of "low cal, ignoring carbs" were *very* hard
|| to stay on. I did, in fact, have big food cravings.

And on LC you would have avoided most of that.

That is probably
|| the reason I fell off the wagon like 6 or 7 times since I got back
|| in July and started and stopped the diet and switched back and forth
|| so much.


Yep...and LC would have been easier and you wouldn't have gained weight had
you paid some attention to how much you ate.

||
|| But after 5 days, appetite suppression very much like Atkins appetite
|| suppression seemed to kick in! I was surprised. I find myself eating
|| things like heat-up pasta or rice dishes (122 calories to 258
|| calories per meal) or even a banana or ear of corn and they do NOT
|| seem to be causing carb cravings afterwards!

If you follow a low cal diet and eat significiantly under maintenance, then
your body will burn everything you eat and then dip into your reserves.
You'll end up in and out of ketosis for much of the day, hence appetite
supression will kick in. Heck, you could decide to eat a single piece of
cake in the morning and nothing else all day. Your body would burn all of
those carbs eventually and you'll spend the majority of the day in ketosis
if you ate nothing else. That's why people can lose weight on low fat
diets -- they undereat calories.


||
|| I am wondering now what the deal is.
||
|| I still don't eat large carb portions, as you can imagine from the
|| calories I mentioned above. The reason I avoid them is not because
|| of the carbs but because the "calories per volume" in something like
|| rice just doesn't seem worth it for the satisfaction received. So I
|| seem to be naturally steering away from *large* rice and pasta and
|| other carb portions. For that same reason I haven't eaten any bread.
|| Two slices of toast at 150 calories (with no butter - too caloric!)
|| just doesn't sound filling enough to be worth the calories.
||
|| So maybe that is it? Maybe by counting calories I am just naturally
|| keeping carbs down to a level that is preventing carb cravings?

Sure....if you don't eat much, then your body will use ALL of the stuff you
eat to fuel itself. Then it will turn to fat stores. LC works better for
most (especially those who are IR and T2s) since it levels out BG better.
You would likely be less hungry on LC.

||
|| doug

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| On 9/15/04 1:00 AM, in article ,
|| "Roger Zoul" wrote:
||
||| Not only that, but low cal eating on low carb is the best way to do
||| it for most, because of appetite suppression. Doing low cal on low
||| fat would be a nightmare for most.
||
|| This is actually a point I would dispute right now - at least for
|| me. I even mentioned it in my first (long) posting.
||
|| The first 4 or 5 days of "low cal, ignoring carbs" were *very* hard
|| to stay on. I did, in fact, have big food cravings.

And on LC you would have avoided most of that.

That is probably
|| the reason I fell off the wagon like 6 or 7 times since I got back
|| in July and started and stopped the diet and switched back and forth
|| so much.


Yep...and LC would have been easier and you wouldn't have gained weight had
you paid some attention to how much you ate.

||
|| But after 5 days, appetite suppression very much like Atkins appetite
|| suppression seemed to kick in! I was surprised. I find myself eating
|| things like heat-up pasta or rice dishes (122 calories to 258
|| calories per meal) or even a banana or ear of corn and they do NOT
|| seem to be causing carb cravings afterwards!

If you follow a low cal diet and eat significiantly under maintenance, then
your body will burn everything you eat and then dip into your reserves.
You'll end up in and out of ketosis for much of the day, hence appetite
supression will kick in. Heck, you could decide to eat a single piece of
cake in the morning and nothing else all day. Your body would burn all of
those carbs eventually and you'll spend the majority of the day in ketosis
if you ate nothing else. That's why people can lose weight on low fat
diets -- they undereat calories.


||
|| I am wondering now what the deal is.
||
|| I still don't eat large carb portions, as you can imagine from the
|| calories I mentioned above. The reason I avoid them is not because
|| of the carbs but because the "calories per volume" in something like
|| rice just doesn't seem worth it for the satisfaction received. So I
|| seem to be naturally steering away from *large* rice and pasta and
|| other carb portions. For that same reason I haven't eaten any bread.
|| Two slices of toast at 150 calories (with no butter - too caloric!)
|| just doesn't sound filling enough to be worth the calories.
||
|| So maybe that is it? Maybe by counting calories I am just naturally
|| keeping carbs down to a level that is preventing carb cravings?

Sure....if you don't eat much, then your body will use ALL of the stuff you
eat to fuel itself. Then it will turn to fat stores. LC works better for
most (especially those who are IR and T2s) since it levels out BG better.
You would likely be less hungry on LC.

||
|| doug