Hershey in low carb market

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:58:05 -0400, Jackie Patti
announced in front of God and everybody:

My opinion is that your filters cause you to see chauvinism where it may
not exist.

That's an awfully huge leap to make based on one exchange. I'd like to
respectfully point out that you know absolutely nothing about my
filters.

But thank you for your input.

Dawn

sprudil wrote:
::::: That's because standing up for choice is not popular. Purity is
::::: so much more noble.
:::
::: That's true. Purity is like taking the "high road".
:::
:::::
::::: I never see anyone post that they eat 90% junk. Obviously from
::::: your post you eat 90% real food as do most (myself included).
:::::
:::
::: Maybe you mean most here....I don' think most people eat 90% real
::: food. Most eat 90% junk and obviously they don't post about it
::: because their heads are in a hole in the sand. I certainly used to
::: before I started LCing and paying attention to what I eat.
::
:: I do mean most here. In ASDLC. doing LC. Those in the population
:: at large eat mostly junk. carb laden fast food and stuff from boxes
:: and cans.
::
:: I don't think there is enough what people would consider lc "junk"
:: out there to constitute 90% of someone's diet. It would also be
:: prohibatively expensive. What I see is people having the
:: occassional shake, bar and snack. some of these items are
:: debateable as to whether or not they are junk. Maybe not real food
:: in a sense but not necessarily junk. These shakes or bars have
:: added protein, fibre, vitamins etc and they may be fine as an odd
:: meal replacement for people on the go or for pre or post workout
:: snack. The candy and chocolate would fall into the junk category.

Maybe somehow nutritional value must play a role in whether a food item is
junk or not. Sugar is real food but if you simply eat sugar you won't get
much nutrition. A bar or shake make be fake food by someone's measure, but
if they provide plenty of nutritional impact, does it really matter --
especially if only used occasionally? Of course, the problem comes with the
other stuff they put in there to stablize the food, enhance taste and color,
etc. The food industry would have us believe all of that stuff is harmless,
but who really knows.

::
:: BTW your carb up hints seem to helped this past weekend.
::

Great. I think I'm going to move to a extended end-of-the-month carb up.
That is, I'll spread it over several days, and just eat one carby meal per
day, while limiting calories to maintenance levels. I did that this past
weekend and felt like a madman in the gym and on my stationary. I picked up
about 7 lbs by Monday but had dropped 5 by this morning. i'm like a sponge.

Jackie Patti wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Jackie Patti wrote:
::::: sprudil wrote:
:::::
::::::: BTW, chocolate and coffee are real foods, both are made from
::::::: beans. One could even make an argument for them being
::::::: vegetables if one tried hard enough.
::::::
:::::: Some might argue that chocolate and coffee undergo a lot of
:::::: processing before it gets to the edible stage. In the case of
:::::: decaf some coffee's are decaffinated using chemicals.
:::::
::::: I was joking, d00d. Coffee and chocolate are crap. I eat 'em,
::::: but I don't delude myself that they're *not* crap.
:::
::: Why are coffee and chocolate crap? I don't know when you're joking
::: or serious?
::
:: I thought saying they were vegetables was pretty obviously a joke.

Well, someone said coffee was fruit.....so if you can warm up to that....

::
:: Why they're crap is cause there's little nutrients for the calories;
:: i.e., they're junk food in the definitional scheme I began earlier.
::

Really? How about that morning kick I get. And chocolate supposedly has
some definite health benefits. Also, coffee doesn't have many calories if
you take it black, so it doesn't offer much nurtrition at all. Now, it is
hard for me to enjoy chocolate unless it has other stuff in it -- cream,
milk, something to make it sweet, etc. So, as most people eat chocolate, it
probably on the whole is not nutritous.

:: That being said, I'm drinking a cup of coffee right now.
::
::
::::: I don't see them posting, but I see them at the grocery store.
::::: People loading up carts full of "low-carb" junk food. It's become
::::: as stupid a fad as low-fat.
:::
::: But all that LC junk food is expensive! I don't see how they can
::: do it. But most people I see at the market are simply loading up on
::: junk.
::
:: Yeah... and all that low-fat stuff was expensive too. But apparently
:: that stuff sold as it's still around.

Well, it's been a while, but a box of snackwell's aint that pricey, is it?
My perception is that currently LC junk food is way more expensive than LF
junk food. Fortunately, I don't consume much of either.

::
::
::::: One of my local stores has thrown "Carb-friendly" labels on
::::: everything even remotely low-carb, real food and junk food alike.
::::: I mean, a package of steak has a big "CARB FRIENDLY" sign on it.
::::: Guess they didn't wanna pay for the official Atkins logo. But
::::: *who* are they advertising to that regular old plain meat is OK
::::: on low carb?
:::
::: Those who don't want to think too hard about what is low carb. I
::: see that as a reasonable and helpful thing, since a lot of people
::: won't take the time to learn it on their own. The place where I
::: see problems, though, is with junk food items.
::
:: I agree there is more problem with "low-carb" doughnuts and Doritos
:: and ice cream than with labeling a roast, and some of that stuff
:: isn't really low-carb at all, but it's pretty silly to be labelling
:: meat like that.
::
:: I don't know why it annoys me so bad. It's really not different than
:: the low-fat stuff, they labelled all sorts of naturally low-fat
:: foods, like pretezels, low-fat. It's the same stupidity really.
::
:: Marketing in general annoys me, I guess.

Yes, marketing is evil.

Dawn Taylor wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:58:05 -0400, Jackie Patti
announced in front of God and everybody:

My opinion is that your filters cause you to see chauvinism where it may
not exist.

That's an awfully huge leap to make based on one exchange. I'd like to
respectfully point out that you know absolutely nothing about my
filters.

Actually Dawn, you may be right - I may be doing the same thing I accuse
you of doing as I haven't read much of you really.

You sounded to me like a period of my own life where I read gobs of
feminist literature and got really angry and over-diagnosed chauvinism
where it was not intended and over-reacted to it. While I most
definetly remain a strong feminist, I got over the ****ed off part of it
after about a year.

Just another example of filters.

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
He may in reality be a misogynist asshole, so you may be
absolutely right. But if you're right, I think it's luck, not
perception, cause he really didn't provide enough information to judge
if he is an asshole or not.


I KF'd him (ig) becos he is an ass to women too.
Lori

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
sprudil wrote:

So its not the type of food but in fact how it is made? So when someone
posts that they eat bacon it is just assumed that it is crap till they
tell
everyone that it was made without chemicals by their local butcher. I
suppose the same can be said for many types of food such as bars and
stuff.
what makes it crap are the chemicals that can be added. I suppose
that's
why some chocolate is not considered crap and why some is. They are not
all
made the same.

I assume when someone says they ate bacon that it's what I'd classify as
processed food. It is when I eat bacon. And probably when most people
eat bacon.

Actually Atkins recommended that one buy bacon without sugar and nitrates
from places like whole foods. I understand that this sort of thing is
available in some supermarkets as well.

But I agree that most people don't go out of their way to avoid such things.

I expect when I post that I eat salad, most people assume an
iceberg-lettuce concotion grown with pesticides and chemical fertilizers
too... which is pretty different than the stuff I eat, out of my garden,
grown with compost and nary a head lettuce in sight.


I don't think the sweetness level is a determining factor unless you are
talking sugar. There is nothing noble about eating bitter chocolate
although some prefer it.

For some making Lynne's chocolate with pure splenda might not consider
it
junk since the amount of pure sucralose is infinitessimal or they used
stevia or they use glycerine and consider that "natural".

Our bodies care about how much protein/fat/carbs we get, in what ratios
and
with what micronutrients. Like plants they make no moral judgements if
the
fat happens to come with fudge or steak.

Look, I like Lynne's chocolate. It's yummy stuff. But it's still junk
food. Sure, it's low-carb junk food, but it's junk food.

But what exactly makes it junk food? is it the cream cheese? or the pure
chocolate? The butter? I can see why a piece of pure sugar alcohol candy
(sugar alcohol and artificial flavour) is junk food.

It's likte ice cream. Ice cream can be junk or not. It depends on what's
in it.



There is a world of difference between eating Lynne's chocolate versus
eating a salad. There are a heck of a lot of micronutrients in a salad
that aren't available in Lynne's chocolate.

People say there are all sorts of beneficial akaloids in chocolate. If you
happened to toss in some protein powder would that make a difference? No
one would argue that brocolli is not superior to cream cheese but does that
make cream cheese junk food? Is what makes something a junk food relative?
It is dependent on what you are comparing it to?

Salmon has a heck of a lot of more nutrition than lettuce (iceberg) does
that make lettuce junk? Lettuce is better than icecream except maybe at the
time I need the fat and my ice cream happens to be made with omega 3 eggs
and pecans so maybe its not really junk.

I'm not saying it's bad or evil or that people "shouldn't" eat it, but
it is junk food.


Atkins himself talked about his normal desires for food. that food was
more
than fuel. His occasional desire for an occasional binge. He was very
much
concerned with making this a WOL.

What Atkins said isn't relevant to me, really, not being one of the
faithful who follow the gospel.

Just because you listen to a point of view doesn't equate to faithful nor
gospel.

So you are basically saying that You know junk food when You see it. that
is fine. But others won't necessarily see junk food when you see it.

But yeah, a life without junk food, ever, under any circumstances, no
holidays, no time off for good behavior, is too stringent for me. And
as a diabetic, it's important to me that this be a WOL, so yeah there's
a place for some junk food in my life.

I do make and eat Lynne's chocolate occassionally, but the point is that
it is still junk food, something to be limited and eaten sensibly, not
made a mainstay of my diet.

No one has ever said that junk food should be a mainstay of your life or
theirs for that matter. Junk has a pejorative label to it. Ice cream is
not low carb, tortillas are frankenfood, and bars are crap. Eat real food.

I don't have to think about limiting my hamburger or salad or yogurt
consumption - these *are* mainstays of my diet. Cause they're real food.

I do because of the calories. My yogurts is home made with cream. Steak
can offer quite a caloric punch. My favourite salad is caesar and it is
fairly high in fat so I shouldn't over do it. But this type of food is 90%
of my diet.

That being said, my ice cream sits in the freezer for weeks on end and
doesn't call my name either. My sf belgian chocolate sits in the cupboard
along with my soy tortilla chips and it doesn't get eaten. Without the
insulin induced cravings I could never leave the stuff alone. My cravings
were physiological not psychological.


Look at any posted menu where people say they eat a shake or a bar
(personally I don't eat the shakes and only eat an occasional bar pre or
post workout) and get lambasted. Anyone who mentions shake is quick to
point out they don't contain SA's. No one suggests that maybe the bars
are
fine for these people and that they may be just at a pause or natural
blip
in their weight loss. that weight loss rarely moves in a linear
fashion.

Chet is fond of telling people to remove stuff and add it back later to
see
if it really was the source. No one listens and he rarely says it
anymore.
It is just assumed these are the problem.

People want the option of splenda and as's in general but its not so
popular to admit using it especially regularly. abstinence and celibacy
are
more noble.

Abstinence and celibacy are dirty words to me. shudder I'm ALIVE!

That being said, I avoid sugar alcohols personally. It seems to me from
the experiences of others that I've read that they are metabolized by
some people and not by others. If they are metabolized, then they are
adding to the carb count. If they are not metabolized, then they are
the cause of digestive upset. Seems like a lose/lose situation to me.
And given that I have the recipe for Lynne's chocolate, they also seem
unnecessary since I can have my occassional treat without resorting to
them.

Actually for me they don't effect me. No distress yet no hindrence of loss.
I don't consume them that often but I'm not adversely affected. I could
never get Lynne's chocolate sweet enough and I don't like chocolate bitter.
The only bitter taste I like is in ku gua (fu gua- chinese bitter melon).
so sf milk chocolate will do.

On the other stuff... people have been saying "maybe it's the aspartame,
that stalls you" as long as I've been lurking here - and I have
personally never had a problem with aspartame.

My sister takes aspartame, coffee, doesn't exercise, tons of extra carbs and
loses easily. go figure.


They've also been saying, "maybe it's the dairy, too much cheese stalls
me" or "maybe it's the nuts" or lots of other stuff. Those don't get
acused of being "purists" cause it's quite obvious that no one is saying
cheese or nuts are "bad," just that the individual had a problem with
nuts.

That's because they characterise the pause or stall as natural with cheese
and nuts and as moral failing if it is a shake or a bar without even
suggesting that it may simply be non linear loss.

I think people tend to "read" someone discussing the problems with sugar
alcohols or aspartame as "purist" but not read people discussing
problems with cheese or nuts as "purist." But I think neither case is
*really* purist, cause individuals *do* have different experiences, and
offering those experiences when someone complains about a lack of
success on low-carb makes sense.

doug Freyberger is fond of saying that to do Atkins properly takes hard
work. Partly in finding your ccll and partly in isolating food groups.
Most people don't bother to do either.

I also agree that experimenting to see what is a problem for the
individual makes sense for the most part.

In my case my rate of loss doesn't increase or decrease. sometimes I do
pause and stall. Lately I think it was because my carbs were too low and I
have had a bump downward thanks to a carb up. I had and have been taking
the occasional bar pre or post workout. The pause is not due to the bars.

Even though I have not experimented with sugar alcohols myself, that is
not becuase I'm "pure" about avoiding them but just cause I don't see
what they'd add to my life so why bother? But it makes sense to me that
someone who wants to use them experiment with different ones and see how
they react.

I see the same thing with lowfat and with low carb although sometimes I
tell
myself that they may be buying for their family as well as themselves so
try
not to judge. My daughter eats lower/good carb so you will see me
buying
stuff that I don't touch. People somehow think that LC should be
magically
different in the sense that the human element has been removed from the
equation.

If a grocery cart is primarily full of junk food and contains little
real food, it doesn't really matter how many people they're buying for.
And it doesn't matter if the stuff is low-fat junk food, low-carb junk
food or just plain old junk food, it's still junk.

It seems to me most people buy a preponderance of junk food and
processed foods when I'm shopping.


Although I do notice that more in the US than in Canada. US
supermarkets
have much more in the way of prepackaged boxed and frozen convienince
stuff.

I haven't noticed this difference really. Groceries in Ottawa seem to
be just as filled with crap as those in PA.

The US grocery stores have more frozen food aisles (Costco too) than a
typical Canadian supermarket. The US has a lot more convienience foods
especially bizarre ones like string cheese in a can and stuff. I'm not
saying Canadians are more noble. Packaged food tends to cost more and
Americans have more disposable income so they buy more of it.

Sid...

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
sprudil wrote:
::::: That's because standing up for choice is not popular. Purity is
::::: so much more noble.
:::
::: That's true. Purity is like taking the "high road".
:::
:::::
::::: I never see anyone post that they eat 90% junk. Obviously from
::::: your post you eat 90% real food as do most (myself included).
:::::
:::
::: Maybe you mean most here....I don' think most people eat 90% real
::: food. Most eat 90% junk and obviously they don't post about it
::: because their heads are in a hole in the sand. I certainly used to
::: before I started LCing and paying attention to what I eat.
::
:: I do mean most here. In ASDLC. doing LC. Those in the population
:: at large eat mostly junk. carb laden fast food and stuff from boxes
:: and cans.
::
:: I don't think there is enough what people would consider lc "junk"
:: out there to constitute 90% of someone's diet. It would also be
:: prohibatively expensive. What I see is people having the
:: occassional shake, bar and snack. some of these items are
:: debateable as to whether or not they are junk. Maybe not real food
:: in a sense but not necessarily junk. These shakes or bars have
:: added protein, fibre, vitamins etc and they may be fine as an odd
:: meal replacement for people on the go or for pre or post workout
:: snack. The candy and chocolate would fall into the junk category.

Maybe somehow nutritional value must play a role in whether a food item is
junk or not. Sugar is real food but if you simply eat sugar you won't get
much nutrition. A bar or shake make be fake food by someone's measure, but
if they provide plenty of nutritional impact, does it really matter --
especially if only used occasionally? Of course, the problem comes with
the
other stuff they put in there to stablize the food, enhance taste and
color,
etc. The food industry would have us believe all of that stuff is
harmless,
but who really knows.

Its like conspiracy theories. sometimes there are no black helicopters and
sometimes we just don't see them
I get most of my protein from the regular way (chicken fish etc ) but I
don't think a low carb protein bar with all its vitamin suplimentation,
fibre and added protein is junk in the same way as a snickers bar.

The same is true for my yogurt protein smoothie for breakfast. It tastes
like a strawberry milkshake to me and it has strawberries, flax, (yogurt,
cream, cream cheese lc milk - depends on what I have around) and a vanilla
whey protein powder. Its not equivalent to dairy queen.

Sid...

::
:: BTW your carb up hints seem to helped this past weekend.
::

Great. I think I'm going to move to a extended end-of-the-month carb up.
That is, I'll spread it over several days, and just eat one carby meal per
day, while limiting calories to maintenance levels. I did that this past
weekend and felt like a madman in the gym and on my stationary. I picked
up
about 7 lbs by Monday but had dropped 5 by this morning. i'm like a
sponge.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 at 20:55 GMT, Dawn Taylor spoke:

Again, I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt because of what he
said later about the event in question. But I still believe that
sighing and lecturing a grown woman is condescending.

Hi Dawn,

I was sighing with respect to another company jumping on the low-carb
band wagon, let alone a chocolate company. The sigh wasn't one of
condescension towards my girlfriend. My girlfriend understood this.

I agree with you that I didn't explain it in further detail here on
the usenet group. I truly didn't think "the sigh" would be so
interesting. In further posts I will try to be more detailed. Sorry
for the confusion.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAdJ6Vd/wbFEGfmloRAl7oAKDGDpK32UxReLE+RBVyOq5FVbraJgCfeo1O
2bo/Y3fXOoacB/i2zmOOIoY=
=TgL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
The King of Pots and Pans
use Gnu/Linux because you are NOT average

sprudil wrote:

But what exactly makes it junk food? is it the cream cheese? or the pure
chocolate? The butter? I can see why a piece of pure sugar alcohol candy
(sugar alcohol and artificial flavour) is junk food.

It's likte ice cream. Ice cream can be junk or not. It depends on what's
in it.

I disagree. I think all ice cream is junkfood.

I also thinks some is way worse than others. Ice cream made with real
food is certainly better than ice cream made with chemicals, but even
the best ice cream is never going to be a "health" food.

To me... junk food is stuff which must be limited in my diet because it
doesn't provide enough nutrients for the calories.

If I ate large amounts of Lynne's chocolate or ice cream every day, I'd
not have room for as many vegetables in my diet. Whereas if I eat piles
of vegetables, I don't have as much room for chocolate or ice cream.
One of these scenarios is significantly healthier than the other.

I'm not saying no one should ever eat junk food, just saying that it's
still junk.


People say there are all sorts of beneficial akaloids in chocolate. If you
happened to toss in some protein powder would that make a difference? No
one would argue that brocolli is not superior to cream cheese but does that
make cream cheese junk food? Is what makes something a junk food relative?
It is dependent on what you are comparing it to?

Hmmm... benefical alkaloids are not necessarily in the same category as
micronutrients though. We *need* both macro and micronutrients. That's
a different level of "benefical".

As to tossing some protein powder in... that makes it better, yes. But
that doesn't make the chocolate not junk food.

I eat full fat plain yogurt flavored with DaVinci syrup. The yogurt is
a good healthy food full of calcium, protein and active cultures. The
DaVinci remains a bottle full of non-food chemicals. The yogurt doesn't
make the DaVinci good food.


Salmon has a heck of a lot of more nutrition than lettuce (iceberg) does
that make lettuce junk? Lettuce is better than icecream except maybe at the
time I need the fat and my ice cream happens to be made with omega 3 eggs
and pecans so maybe its not really junk.

I would vote iceberg lettuce junk only in comparsion to other veggies.
I mean, it's mostly water with little nutrient value in comparison to
almost every other green veggie. But it sure beats the heck out of Fritos.

And sure, there's a wide variety of nutrients you need, so measuring fat
vs. protein vs. vitamins vs. minerals doesn't make sense particularly.
*But* there isn't any particular "need" for chocolate or coffee, at
least in a nutritional sense. They're junk food.



Atkins himself talked about his normal desires for food. that food was

more

than fuel. His occasional desire for an occasional binge. He was very

much

concerned with making this a WOL.

What Atkins said isn't relevant to me, really, not being one of the
faithful who follow the gospel.

Just because you listen to a point of view doesn't equate to faithful nor
gospel.

The wording got to me. "Atkins himself" as if he were the high priest
of low-carb. My interpretation.

Yes, Aktins says some good stuff. And he completly got it about the
effects of insulin and glucagon on obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
He was not the first, nor the last, and wasn't particularly expert
either.

I don't "get" the Atkins as authority thing. Conversely, I also don't
get the "Atkins as pariah" thing. Both extremes seem religious to me.


So you are basically saying that You know junk food when You see it. that
is fine. But others won't necessarily see junk food when you see it.

I basically began by saying what *my* definition of these terms were...
real food, processed foods, fake food, junk food and frankenfood. And I
claimed them as my definitions, not as a final authority on the subject.

I do make and eat Lynne's chocolate occassionally, but the point is that
it is still junk food, something to be limited and eaten sensibly, not
made a mainstay of my diet.

No one has ever said that junk food should be a mainstay of your life or
theirs for that matter. Junk has a pejorative label to it. Ice cream is
not low carb, tortillas are frankenfood, and bars are crap. Eat real food.

I don't see the pejorative connotation as strongly as you do. To me,
junk food does not mean I should never, ever, ever eat it. Similarly,
overly-processed foods, frankenfoods and fake foods are not as good as
real foods.

To me, the "perjorative" labels just mean what you agreed with - that
these foods should not be the mainstay of a diet. Coffee, chocolate and
DaVinci syrup is not a healthy diet. A healthy diet must limit these
foods to some degree in favor of real foods.


I don't have to think about limiting my hamburger or salad or yogurt
consumption - these *are* mainstays of my diet. Cause they're real food.

I do because of the calories.

I guess I don't have to because the appetite supression works so well
for me. I tend to forget to eat.

My yogurts is home made with cream. Steak
can offer quite a caloric punch. My favourite salad is caesar and it is
fairly high in fat so I shouldn't over do it. But this type of food is 90%
of my diet.

I haven't figured a good way to incubate yogurt yet... want to try that
myself. My oven even on it's lowest setting is too hot.

My favorite salad is different every week. I tried walnuts as a topping
instead of sunflower seeds recently, and that was really good.


That being said, my ice cream sits in the freezer for weeks on end and
doesn't call my name either. My sf belgian chocolate sits in the cupboard
along with my soy tortilla chips and it doesn't get eaten. Without the
insulin induced cravings I could never leave the stuff alone. My cravings
were physiological not psychological.

Yeah, me too. Hubby does not low-carb and a houseful of non low-carb
stuff doesn't bother me much. I can think of maybe 2 or 3 items that
would bug me if they were here, and luckily they aren't his favorites so
they're not here. And the smell of baking bread still gets to me. But
for the most part... there's no strong cravings anymore.

Although this thread is making me think about whipping up some Lynne's
chocolate.


Abstinence and celibacy are dirty words to me. shudder I'm ALIVE!

That being said, I avoid sugar alcohols personally. It seems to me from
the experiences of others that I've read that they are metabolized by
some people and not by others. If they are metabolized, then they are
adding to the carb count. If they are not metabolized, then they are
the cause of digestive upset. Seems like a lose/lose situation to me.
And given that I have the recipe for Lynne's chocolate, they also seem
unnecessary since I can have my occassional treat without resorting to

them.

Actually for me they don't effect me. No distress yet no hindrence of loss.
I don't consume them that often but I'm not adversely affected. I could
never get Lynne's chocolate sweet enough and I don't like chocolate bitter.
The only bitter taste I like is in ku gua (fu gua- chinese bitter melon).
so sf milk chocolate will do.

If it works for you, great. I like the Lynne's stuff. I want to
experiment a bit more with the DaVinci syrups as it'd provide a wide
range of flavors. I tried with some raspberry, but apparently overdid
the syrup as it didn't set up.


My sister takes aspartame, coffee, doesn't exercise, tons of extra carbs and
loses easily. go figure.

Yeah, I like aspartame too. And it's a lot cheaper than Splenda since
it's off-patent.


That's because they characterise the pause or stall as natural with cheese
and nuts and as moral failing if it is a shake or a bar without even
suggesting that it may simply be non linear loss.

I don't see it that way. I don't see anything moral or immoral about
eating any particular food. I make judgements about foods, yes - some
are better for me than others.

But there's nothing immoral about food - even the "bad" foods.

I am not a "better" person cause I grow my own "organic" veggies, I grow
my own veggies cause I *want* to. I enjoy gardening and love the taste
of the results.

I eat mostly real food for a variety of reasons, because it's good for
my health, because it normalizes my blood sugar, because I enjoy the
taste of home-cooking over processed foods, because I feel better eating
mostly real food. None of these are "moral" reasons for me
particularly. Morals are about stuff like being kind to people, being a
good mother, caring about the welfare of people I love. What I put in
my mouth has nothing to do with ethical principles.

That was my point in beginning this thread. I can judge foods with
different labels without being religious about it.


doug Freyberger is fond of saying that to do Atkins properly takes hard
work. Partly in finding your ccll and partly in isolating food groups.
Most people don't bother to do either.

Probably true.


I also agree that experimenting to see what is a problem for the
individual makes sense for the most part.

In my case my rate of loss doesn't increase or decrease. sometimes I do
pause and stall. Lately I think it was because my carbs were too low and I
have had a bump downward thanks to a carb up. I had and have been taking
the occasional bar pre or post workout. The pause is not due to the bars.

As they say, your body, your science experiment.


I haven't noticed this difference really. Groceries in Ottawa seem to
be just as filled with crap as those in PA.

The US grocery stores have more frozen food aisles (Costco too) than a
typical Canadian supermarket. The US has a lot more convienience foods
especially bizarre ones like string cheese in a can and stuff. I'm not
saying Canadians are more noble. Packaged food tends to cost more and
Americans have more disposable income so they buy more of it.

I haven't shopped in Canada enough to really notice the difference, I
guess. Also... since I'm not generally shopping for junk food anyways,
I probably wouldn't notice this.

Hubby finds the biggest difference to be that we can't find cheese curds
here in PA.


--
Newbie tip: Read the FAQ. It's posted here daily, contains tons of
great info on low-carbing and lots of links to more great info and tons
of recipes too!

sprudil burbled across the ether:
I guess I just haven't seen that. Revek says the purists are
currently not posting, so I may have missed it.


I don't know who she had in mind...


IIRC, Bridget believed in keeping it pure. She's off growing a baby
these days. There are others, but my mind is blanking on them.

Most of it won't be able
to walk the narraw path of a purist for very long, if at all. It's
just too hard and time consuming for today.

Many of the ones that do (not all of them), in my experience, react to
those of us who find it more difficult or impossible to be so strict the
same way a normal weight person spouts off about willpower and
discipline. They believe that if they can do it, anybody can, and get
annoyed when other people don't make the same decisions they do. Much
like JC and his attitude that if you really want to lose the weight you
would 'just do it'.

Look at any posted menu where people say they eat a shake or a bar
(personally I don't eat the shakes and only eat an occasional bar pre
or post workout) and get lambasted. Anyone who mentions shake is
quick to point out they don't contain SA's. No one suggests that
maybe the bars are fine for these people and that they may be just at
a pause or natural blip in their weight loss. that weight loss
rarely moves in a linear fashion.

This is mostly the doing of Jenny and her tireless crusade against SAs,
because of the evilness of Atkins Nutritionals who decieved her on
purpose, and anybody who calls for common sense is out to kill her.
roll eyes Nobody wants to get on her sh*t list for disagreeing with
her in even the smallest way. So it's left to one or two of us to rebut
and it always ends up going downhill. People walk on eggshells when
that subject comes up for good reason.

Chet is fond of telling people to remove stuff and add it back later
to see if it really was the source. No one listens and he rarely
says it anymore. It is just assumed these are the problem.

People want the option of splenda and as's in general but its not so
popular to admit using it especially regularly. abstinence and
celibacy are more noble.


Noble isn't the word that I'd use. America still has a very strong
strain of puratinism running through it. People are supposed to
"suffer" for their own good. But those kind posts are usually from the
trolls and the curious lookie-lookies who aren't here long.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
I read a report that said the typical symptoms of stress were eating
too much, drinking too much, impulse buying, and driving too fast. Who
are they kidding? That's my idea of a perfect day.