My Modified LC plan

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
news:8a89cb61-2a56-4c11-9ec6-

Do you make your own BBQ sauce or dry rub? I now find
even the few mustard based commercial sauces too sweet.
I've made vinegar based BBQ sauce that had nothing
sweet in it but I never wrote down the recipe. Just dump
in stuff that sounded right until I have a pint. I've tried a
couple of mustard based sauce recipes but I have not been
pleased with the results.

The dry rub that I use most is Emeril's simple rub. 2 TBS Kosher salt, 1TBS
Chinese Five Spice, and 1 TBS Pepper. It's not sweet at all though, but we
like it. YMMV

Cheri

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" wrote in message
. ..

I think exercise plays a huge part in any kind of weight loss.


Don't minimize your walking as being key to your success. Walking 3-4
miles a day is what I do, and I get quite soaked by the time I get back
home.



--
"When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

Billy wrote:

... The cheapest foods "seem" to be junk foods. I say "seem"
because they they are deficient in nutrients.

I say "seem" because of labelling and advertizing. Anyone
who has priced rolled oat by the pound in bulk against
sugary cereals has seen that the heavily advertized foods
aren't as cheap as a quick glance would suggest.

The actual cheapest foods are the ones that come in
sacks sized 10, 25, 50 and 100 pounds or 5, 10, 25 and
50 kilos. Those foods are flour, sugar and beans. Definite
junk food except for the beans. The beans are nourishing
but low fat rather than low carb unless used in small
quanities. A diet that uses large quantities of beans as its
staple will need to be a low fat plan not a low carb plan.

But pricing fresh veggies and fresh meat by the calorie
plus vitamin and mineral content against the heavily
advertized packaged products will show that fresh food is
cheaper per quality. It takes considerable effort and
thought early on by many folks to change their shopping
habits but once that effort is complete low carb tends to
be a little cheaper than the food eaten before starting.

Because of beans, potatoes, rice and corn shopping for a
low fat plan can seem cheap than a low carb plan early
on, but the stress on fruits and veggies on any good
quality plan cancels the advantage out. Meat isn't really
more expensive than good quality fruits and veggies per
calorie and per mineral content. In this low fat has an
early advantage because of initial appearances but once
new shopping habits are learned either low carb or low
fat are both cheaper than eating highly advertized
processed foods.

In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

BlueBrooke wrote:
Is this part of that "eating carbs for pleasure" thing you were
advocating? I can see now why it's not possible to have a meeting of
the minds here -- my definition of "pleasure" seems to be quite
different from the one you're using.

You surely cannot be this dense. The pleasure of those desserts was mitigated
by the ill effects from frequency and quantity. Had I eaten any of them in
smaller quantities and with less frequency, my pleasure would have been
unmitigated and complete.

You continually contradict yourself -- are you just making this up as
you go along?

Not at all. I think through my points before posting.

You misrepresent what a low-carb WOL actually *is* and
are defensive when you're called on it.

What have I misrepresented about Atkins or South Beach? Both plans begin with
proteins and low-carb vegetables such as those common found in salads,
stirfries and sautees. Both advocate complete abstinence from refined sugar
and
flour of all types except soy and nut. South beach allows for beans during
its
first phase, while Atkins does not. South Beach eventually reintegrates whole
wheat flour, brown rice and a higher quantity of fruit than the Atkins
Ongoing
Weight Loss phase does. Both plans encourage the consumption of protein and
low-carb vegetables until hunger is satiated, usually in patterns of three
meals plus two snacks. Now, tell me again, what have I misunderstood or
misrepresented?

I've lost over 80 pounds in the last year and a half -- and yeah, I
think that's pretty awesome. I'm enjoying it immensely -- being able
to actually look in a mirror and starting to like what I see. The
compliments don't hurt, either. Frankly, I'm lookin' pretty hot for
an old lady.

I've lost enough weight for my blood chemistry to turn from very negative to
very encouraging, which was my main goal. Being totally blind from birth and
in
a relationship, I neither look in mirrors nor care whether or not people
think
I'm hot. I will continue losing weight, but not if eating becomes odious
drudgery.

But I'm the furthest thing from a low-carb "zealot" that
you're likely to find. If I'm zealous about anything, it is personal
responsibility -- something that doesn't seem to interest you.

Personal responsibility should not be confused with selfishness. I may make
choices based on how my choices might affect other people, while still taking
responsibility for the choices themselves.

I go on "vacation" occasionally myself. It's a choice. It isn't
giving in to ancient primal desires, or the inability to interact in a
social setting without eating what everyone else is eating -- it's a
choice *I* make and *I* take responsibility for without trying to come
up with a long list of excuses.

I never claimed that my choices were other people's fault or senseless
reactions to social pressure. There are times when I want to eat what other
people are eating in order to commune with them through food. If you think
that's an excuse or a lack of personal responsibility, we have a fundamental
difference of opinion. The desire for inclusion and culinary communion is a
perfectly valid reason to choose to eat carbs in social settings. You may not
agree with my choice, but I consider it valid.

Why not just say, "I wanted that dessert." Why throw in "I was being
polite to my in-laws?"

Is your mind so incapable of subtlety that you can't accept both motivations
operating simultaneously? Yes, I wanted those desserts. But, if my in-laws
hadn't visited, my fiancee would not have made them. So, part of my choice
was
influenced by not wanting to offend them, while another part of that choice
was
influenced by availability. Had the desserts not been prepared and offered to
me in my own home, I would not have had a choice to make.

Why not just say, "I wanted to eat beans and
rice." Why preface that with "They ate all the chicken before I got
there?"

As it happened, we got severely lost on the way to the gig and arrived
minutes
before our start time. As it happens, all but three pieces of chicken had
already been eaten. I ate one leg and saved the other two for my flautist
friend who had done all the driving and who was playing with me that night.
There was literally nothing else to eat and I knew I wouldn't be leaving
there
until after two in the morning. I had left my house at 4:30 and hadn't eaten
until 10:00 when we arrived with minutes to spare. So, as it happens, I
either
ate more rice and beans than I wanted or went hungry for hours. If you would
have chosen hunger over the beans and rice because you would lok better in
the
mirror, that would have been a valid choice for you.

Obviously, you ate those things because you wanted to. Why
isn't that enough? Why all the rationalization that goes with it?

Because merely wanting to doesn't explain everything that went through my
mind
before making the choice.

You don't need to justify what you eat to anyone -- certainly not to
the people who read this group. But for some reason you seem to feel
compelled to do so.

Thanks for the free pass.

If it's to help others understand how your
dietary choices are working for you, I think the part of your post
that I quoted above shows that is not the case.

My dietary approach worked when I lost thirty pounds in less than two months
and kept losing at a slower rate until last month.

These are your choices -- why not own them? Instead, you seem to have
a need to see yourself -- and everyone else -- as helpless in the face
of a constant dietary onslaught. No thanks.

I never situated myself as a victim of a constant dietary onslaught. I know
what certain foods do to my body, I know how much I enjoy them anyway, and I
try to balance the two sets of data--one objective and the other subjective.
I
am also an acculturated creature. Food is an important symbol of who I am,
where I come from and what my people eat. I like staying culturally connected
to my people's foods without eating them to excess. Those things are honestly
more important to me than my appearance in the mirror or any compliments I
might get. My health is also very important to me. I have brought my
cholesterol down more than a hundred points and taken my fasting glucose out
of
the borderline diabetic range. I walk with less pain and have more energy. I
continue losing weight, albeit more slowly than I could if I sacrificed more.
I
know how it feels to start a diet ready to conquer the world and sacrifice
all
urges to the higher goal of weight loss. I also know how quickly I've burned
out with such zealotry. So, if it takes me double your time to lose the same
weight as you, I'll gladly endure it if I'm enjoying more of what I eat along
the way. Why is that choice so difficult to understand?

Orlando

You started this thread by tallking about eating prepared meals using
lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. What products, specifically, are
you eating? This may be of help to others.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

You started this thread by tallking about eating prepared meals using
lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. What products, specifically, are
you eating? This may be of help to others.
--


I don't know where you live or what you like? This is a regional
challenge. It's really easy. Just go to the frozen foods section of your big
supermarket, and read the labels. Too many to mention here. Some brands may
be generally awful but may have 1 or 2 selections that you really like. I
tend to buy ones that are around 250-300 calories, low sodium, and as low
carb as I can find. That said some of the higher carb counts may be because
they include an apple fritter dessert, which I may not eat, thus bringing it
down. Kashi seems to make good stuff, with Healthy Choice not that good. You
need to "audition" until you find what you like. Also Trader Joes has really
nice frozen meals as well.


--
"When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

wrote in message
...
To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan.


You may not remember this trader4, but several years ago you and I were
the only ones that were fans of Atkins LC cereal. We were alone then in
fighting the battle against the LC zealots here at the time. Yes you can eat
some really good LC food that is a bit higher in carbs and live a nice life.
Sometimes variation in this WOE makes it easier to stay with it over the
long run. LC ice cream, chocolate, cereal, or bars make life a bit more
fun.


--
"Never bet on the end of the world because it's only going to happen once
and how are you going to collect?"

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

In article ,
"JKconey" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

You started this thread by tallking about eating prepared meals using
lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. What products, specifically, are
you eating? This may be of help to others.
--


I don't know where you live or what you like? This is a regional
challenge. It's really easy. Just go to the frozen foods section of your big
supermarket, and read the labels. Too many to mention here. Some brands may
be generally awful but may have 1 or 2 selections that you really like. I
tend to buy ones that are around 250-300 calories, low sodium, and as low
carb as I can find. That said some of the higher carb counts may be because
they include an apple fritter dessert, which I may not eat, thus bringing it
down. Kashi seems to make good stuff, with Healthy Choice not that good. You
need to "audition" until you find what you like. Also Trader Joes has really
nice frozen meals as well.

But what, specifically, do you eat?
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

On Aug 16, 5:58*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





wrote:
On Aug 15, 6:39*pm, Billy wrote:

A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO
crops lead to allergies. * Also, the issue of possible antibiotic
resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every
reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical
possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a
number of valid reasons.

I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception"
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the
discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the
roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the
spliceosome.

The link doesn't work. *

The link works fine. The problem must lie elsewhere, hmmmm. And surely you understand the difference
between books and peer reviewed studies. * Just because someone writes
a book, doesn't establish anything. * As an example, I can find you
books that say cholesterol is a significant risk factor in CHS and
others that say it matters not a wit.

I didn't agree to let you be the judge of the material. I'm telling you
of some of the materials that have lead me to my conclusions.

What I asked for was any peer reviewed studies that looked at the
issues of GMO and supported your conclusions. You responded with
books. There is a difference. I can find you books that say most
anything, including that they have the natural cure for cancer. Does
that make it so?




Let me
also mention
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health by Gary Taubeshttp://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400...
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250449966&sr=1-1
which explores the history of cholesterol and heart disease.

Which of course has nothing to do with GMO and allergies, safety of
GMO, etc which is what we're talking about.




Also see the work of Árpád Pusztai.

I took a look at it and it appears to be one study that he did that
wasn't even focused on GMO, but that happened to notice effects on
rats from GMO potatoes. * The study was surrounded by controversy and
Pusztai apparently was fired from the institute.

You are such a hack. I have very little interest in trying carrying on a
conversation with someone who has no interest in hearing.

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts.





"In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries
published a memo supporting Pusztai. On February 19 the Royal Society,
which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not
normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review
committee would review his work and on May 18 the board issued the
results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House
of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked
Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo
showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation
Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only
three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit"
headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing
scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role
was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring
operation.[6]
Pusztai experiment was eventually published. Because of the
controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by
Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual
number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the
only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the
government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting
with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by
publicly attacked the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.[9] The
paper - which used data held by Dr Ewen and so was not subject to James
veto on Pusztai's work - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically
modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut
tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes. [10][11] It
has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not
a fair control diet.[12] Three days after accepting the paper for
publication and announcing it was also considering publishing a second
research paper by another team of scientists who had looked at the same
GM protein used in Dr Pusztai's potatoes and found that it binds to
human white blood cells, The Lancets editor, Richard Horton, received a
"very aggressive" phone call from Sir Peter Lachmann, the Secretary of
The Royal Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences,[13]
calling him "immoral" and threatening him that if he published the paper
it would have implications for his personal position as editor. Lachmann
admits making the call but denies that what he said was a threat and
claims the call was to "discuss his (Hortons) error of judgment" in
publishing the paper.[14][15] Following publication, co author Dr
Stanley Ewen, claims he found his career options "blocked at a very high
level" and retired. The potatoes were subsequently destroyed, along with
all details of their modification and Cambridge Agricultural Genetics
subsequently ceased business.[6]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai

Sure sounds like exactly what I said. That the research study was
surrounded by controversy and the researcher left the institute
shortly thereafter.





That's one study, compared to how many that have found no effects?

Who can afford the money for studies? As with science articles, science
research usually pleases the funder.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...al.pmed.004000
5



Oh please. There is a boat load of money spent and made available
every year for research on almost everything one could imagine.
Don;t use that as an excuse to take the results of one disputed study
that wasn't even designed to look at GMO safety and accept it as
gospel, while ignoring all the other evidence. There have been far
more peer reviewed studies that were actually designed to specifically
look at the safety of GMO and showed no dangers.








Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to
pay 2X. * In developed countries, many people can afford that
option. * But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO
crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. * *Two of which
are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the
environment and cost.

Exposed: the great GM crops
mythhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-gre...
m-crops-myth-812179.htmlhttp://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm

Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more
pesticides.

Besides Roundup, GMO crops have been developed to be specifically
resistant to both insects and disease. * That means farmers use LESS
chemicals because the crop is naturally resistant to insect and
disease. *

This means that more people are eating the toxins from Bacillus
thuringiensis, and in greater quantities. The ban of Starlink corn was
due to its obvious allergenic properties. What damage is caused by less
obvious allergies? Why are we the guinea pigs? Even the breeders of
Starling concede that resistance will eventually develop to Bacillus
thuringiensis toxins by crop pests. At present, the best we can do is to
slow down this development.



So it's better for the farmer to spray the crop with BT directly or
another pesticide which are the other alternatives?






So, it's not true that in the case of all, or even most GMO
it leads to the use of more chemicals and in the specific case of
pesticides, it clearly leads to LESS being used. * *Again, you are
only looking at the negatives, because of obvious bias.

As far as Roundup, yes in that case it allows the crops to then be
sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds. * But the question becomes how
much more yield do you then get, what would the farmer use to treat
the weeds if Roundup could not be used, etc.

Here's what the UN, which is clearly no mouthpiece for US business
interests has to say about GMO

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Potential benefits for the environment

For god's sake, this was written by a reoprter. Potential "IF"

So says you. It's on the UN website newsroom and not attributed to
any specific reporter or news agency. It would appear to me to have
been generated by their own news organization reflecting the position
of the FAO of the UN.





More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean
that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal
land into cultivation.

Already gave you one study where it is shown the GMO crops don't produce
larger crops.

Golden Rice has been a complete failure as the the amount of vitamin "A"
in it is insignificant.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and
industrial processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and
diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop
protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize,
cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the
bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis - because they produce
its insecticidal agent themselves

And if the problems of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis toxins weren't
enough you continue to over look the dangers that have been enumerated
for any GMO crop. Some GMOs may turn out to be benign, but in the mean
time we are guinea pigs.





THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil
ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil
you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up
having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while
at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating
huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

If we did not have those pesticides, herbicides, etc available, food
would cost a lot more and a lot more people in the world would be
starving. * *This more balanced view is expressed by the UN, as
opposed to the shrill voices on the extremes.

The point is, that with out topsoil, there won't be agriculture.


Yes, more hippie shrill voice nonsense. If we're destroying the
topsoil, how is it that more and more food is produced here in the USA
on the same land each year?





So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life
and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and
they are a disaster for the environment.

If that were true, then you don't have to worry. * Because farmers
would not pay more for GMO seed and use it if it did not produce
higher yields. * So, obviously it does work.

Farmers are just figuring this ...

read more »

I think the farmers are likely smarter than you and know what works
economically. As for economics, weren't you the one that complained
people were eating twinkies because of government crop subsidies? I
showed you that in the last 4 years, the price of grain tripled, yet
the twinkies are still flying off the shelves aren't they? So much
for the cost of grain being the driving factor in twinky sales.

On Aug 19, 9:53*pm, "JKconey" wrote:
wrote in message

...
To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan.

* * You may not remember this trader4, but several years ago you and I were
the only ones that were fans of Atkins LC cereal. We were alone then in
fighting the battle against the LC zealots here at the time. Yes you can eat
some really good LC food that is a bit higher in carbs and live a nice life.
Sometimes variation in this WOE makes it easier to stay with it over the
long run. *LC ice cream, chocolate, cereal, or bars make life a bit more
fun.



Yes, I remember many of those battles. I just finished a box of
Atkins cereal a few months ago. You would think it would taste off
by now, but remarkably it was still just about as good as ever. It's
one of the products I miss most.

I think many of the items you listed can work fine when used in
moderation and in the appropriate phase of a LC plan. People need
to hear both sides of the story and not be mislead into thinking to do
LC they have to only eat food they prepare themselves, only organic,
avoid soy, whatever. If people choose to limit themselves to those
options due to personal choice, that's fine. But it is distinctly
sepperate and not an essential component of LC.

On Aug 17, 6:41*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
wrote:
That you've never read the book for the plan you're discussing.

Nonsense! I've read the South Beach book twice and many of Atkins' books.

That won't work and sure enough it's not what the book says
for any low carb plan.

I never accused low-carb books of advocating meat and fat fests. Atkins and
South Beach, the two with which I am most familiar, deal with the reintegration
of fruits, vegetables and whole grains into an essentially low-carb diet.

Among other reasons because some people have addictive
behavior patterns in reaction to eating specific foods and there
is eternal pressure that "no food should be forbidden" directly
causes they folks off their plan.

I wouldn't say I'm addicted to any specific foods or generalized groups.
However, it is difficult to limit frequency and portions once the flood gates
have opened.

Among other reasons that pressure to fall off *any* plan no
matter what it is is constant and unending. *The social
pressure is a lot more intense for low carbers but it exists
and is endless for low fatters, calorie counters, you name it.

Agreed.

Among other reasons that folks like you never bother to read
the book for the plan they discuss.

You should ask rather than assume.

If you don't read the book. *If you actually *do* read the book
there are instructions for exactly that. *And I'm not only
referring to Atkins here - Every single published low carb plan
that has survived for any length of time in fact has much of its
text about adding carb bearing foods to your diet.

Yes. Most of them simply outline the glycemic index and suggest people add
carbs back in incrementally until they either stop losing weight or regain some
weight.

And did you discover that you have an addictive behavior
pattern in response or that you did not?

I don't think my patterns addictive at all. Since they've left, I haven't
partaken of any sugar or refined flour; I feel perfectly fine with no cravings,
headaches or other symptoms.



If you did, get back on the wagon and screw nonsensical ideas that "being
polite"
equals giving in to pressure to eat poison. *It's not polite for
them to press toxic foods on you.

I am back on the wagon, but I don't think those desserts are toxic. I don't
blame them for pressing poison into my hands, as you so poetically put it.. My
mother-in-law doesn't see us but once or twice a year and I love her desserts.
Even a week or two of eating her desserts every night won't make me regain all
the weight I've lost because I don't continue eating carbs past their visits.

And thus the endless advice on this group to eat before going
to a place you don't know their food options.

I do that whenever feasible.

And thus the discussion on this group over the years that you
seem to have missed.

I haven't missed anything. Look, I don't pretend to have eaten those desserts
by coercion; I knew they were there, what they would do to my body and wanted
them anyway. The addiction model makes it sound as though people don't make
dietary choices. Even at the spur of the moment, when I choose to eat something
off plan, I'm making a choice and can live with it. Notice that I don't post
bellyaches or whines about how I've fallen and can't get up.

There are two components to any long-term dietary change, physiology and
psychology. The first hurdle is the cessation of hunger, which usually only
takes me two or three days on plan. But, the next is the gratification of
pleasure, which is not always easy to accomplish. That's why there was such an
explosion of low-carb bake mixes, artificial sweeteners, ice creams, syrups,
breads, pastas and candy. People feel socially, psychologically and culturally
drawn to those foods, and since they can't eat them on plan, they seek
substitutes. Agitston actually recommends eating real ice cream in small
amounts with fresh fruit rather than scarfing down larger amounts of low-fat or
even low-carb ice cream. Since I'm not a big bread eater, I can have sprouted,
whole grain or artisan breads without my body chemistry changing much.

For folks who do get addictive behavior patterns in response to
specific foods, the Heller CAD plan is a formula aimed at crash
and burn rapid exit from the plan. *Been there, done that, got that
teeshirt. *For folks who do not there's a list of questions at the
front of the book to help determine if that plan will work for them.

I appear to be making little headway against your addiction hypothesis. Plenty
of people want to be able to partake of some carbs at least on special
occasions or in social settings. I am not a binge eater. I've never sat down
with a bowl of cookies or a bag of potato chips while watching TV. In fact, I
go to great lengths to avoid eating alone. For me, food is an extremely
fulfilling social activity. I'd rather compensate and do without certain foods
so that I can go out to dinner with my lady or some friends and eat normally.
For people who routinely encounter carbs at work or at home, this special
occasion indulgence approach is less practical.

Orlando


In following this ongoing debate, I think one big issue is what is the
definition of low carb? Clearly, I think all of us wood agree that
Atkins is LC. But what about someone who realizes that excessive
carbs from flour, sugar, corn syrup, etc is bad and chooses to cut
back. They could do it in a variety of ways. They could keep a
daily carb limit of say 150grams every day, which is substantially
less than the typical American eats in a day. Or they could be
eating say 100g most days, then have a few days a month where they eat
their in-law's desserts that are full of sugar. The question becomes,
are they doing LC or not? Without a definition, we have many
interpretations as to what is LC and no definitive answer.

At the end of the day, if they are doing something to limit carb
consumption in a major way compared to the typical person's diet and
it's working for them, I don't see the problem. I would see it as a
problem if it's not working for them or they were advocating it as a
solution in an inappropriate way. An example of that would be to
advocate the 150g a day limit and occasional sugary desserts to
someone 100lbs overweight just starting out on Atkins. But if they
are at a reasonable weight and can average say 150g a day in carbs
with no cravings or other problems, then I see no problem with it.