Atkins Diet

I'm eating right. I'm eating eggs and whole wheat bread and asparagus
and apples and roast beef and chicken and salmon and cabbage and
lowfat milk and cheese and beans and lots of other good stuff. I cook
with olive oil, or, when necessary, peanut oil.

chuck the whole wheat bread it is a waste of calories. just read the label.
wheat has been so modified I doubt it has anything we can really use besides the
carbs it contains.
atleast get some sprouted wheat bread or whole grain bread.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Lictor wrote:
I don't think I am in danger of malnutrition by not having pasta

I also doubt it, there are other sources of carbs than pasta. Though there
is more to eating than nutriments. Pasta is also *good*. I don't like being
deprived

(I cannot anyway, as I am gluten intolerant - this is the part where "I
discovered low carb by accident" comes in), and I still do on occasion
have some wild or brown basmati rice.

Then, it's a whole different matter. Sorry, I didn't know about that.
The problem is that we should have different words for "diet" - one for
people who diet because they want to lose weight, and another for people who
have a metabolic condition forcing them on a diet. Obviously, you have the
later, so it would be just stupid to pretend you can be on a diet with
gluten and remain healthy.
People who want to lose weight are a different matter. Around 10% of them
have a real health problem, and in many cases, it only explains part of
their weight. Some of these health problems (like thyroid problems) can
actually be fixed. Maybe 30% have what used to be good genetics and is now
bad : the ability to store fats very easily - but that's only part of the
problem. For the majority of people on a weight loss plan, the problems are
behavioural or psychological. I mean, for many obeses, you don't have to
seek the reason for them being fat : they just eat too much. And often, the
reason for them eating too much is not biological.
I just don't think *any* diets are the *only* answer to a problem that
involves such a large range of causes. Actually, I suspect they do more bads
than goods. All diets work by building cognitive restrictions - a mental
state that is at the center of boulimia and anorexia. A successfull diet is
actually one that has managed to turn you into a "reasonnable anorexic" who
manages to keep a permanent level of restriction without going too far. A
half successfull one only turns you into a reasonnable boulimic who
alternates between restrictions and binge eating. I don't think these are
reasonnable long term solutions. It's an extremelly unstable situation -
anything can tilt the balance one way or another. It doesn't teach you how
to eat correctly, it doesn't teach you how to deal sanely with your hunger
(actually most diets just try to teach you how to ignore it completely), it
doesn't teach you how to deal with the events in your life without the
food...
Diets are a good answer for people like you, because you do need to restrict
yourself from some kind of food.

I choose, for my own personal
health, to avoid glutenous grains. The fact that it is in most of the
cultural food available in my area is not my fault, nor is it my
problem. I simply don't eat it.

Because your main problem is allergies, not weight. Then, it makes sense.
For a "normal" person, it would make no sense not to eat any grains (there
is a diet like that) as the mean to deal with a psychological pulsion.

How I "fell into" low carbing is a story in and of itself. The short
version is that for various health reasons I eliminated certain
ingredients from my diet. I found myself feeling incredible and then
someone told me that what I was doing 'sounded like' a low carb diet, so
it was after that, that I did a bit of digging around and reading about
what low-carbohydrate eating is.

I also did fall into my own "diet" pattern this way. The last time I managed
to lose a significant amount of weight was actually without dieting at all.
Actually, I was eating at McDonald four times a week. The only difference
was that I was feeling happy and had a bright vision on life. I also really
enjoyed the food I ate (yes, even Big Macs), and was really tuned to my body
signals (hunger, satiety). I lost the weight naturally and pretty fast,
while feeling absolutely *great* and full of energy. The reason it finally
failed were purely psychological (my girlfriend and I had a one year break
up that looked definitive back then, I was forced to move abroad to a
country I hated because of my job contract...). So, the logic thing to do
would be to learn to deal with the psychological issues. Then, I did come
uppon a "diet" that was centered around both these psychological issues and
tuning yourself to your feelings. I could have written the book myself
That's also the healthiest alternative. You worked your own diet for
yourself, and then happened to find it was close to an existing diet. Your
eating patterns still were mainly your own. Just like some people have a
diet which happens to stick to some culturally established diet that happens
to be pretty close - like some vegans will adopt Indian vegetarism, because
it's already pretty close to their eating habits.
I have more problems with the opposite alternative : people who adopt an
alien diet that is completely opposite to their habits as one falls into a
religion. This means killing any personnal feelings they have about food and
what they like, to adopt the completely external point of view of a doctor
or a book. The problem of many people with obesity is actually externalism
(trusting outside opinion more than their own - especially for basic signals
like hunger). This only worsens the problem instead of solving it.

Then the only conclusion I can come to, is that your body is different
than mine and can handle different amounts of food which I eat far less
of.

Well, you do have a documented body difference : your allergy. So,
obviously, I have options you do not have. You're also a woman, and dieting
is something men seem to have some advantages with (we got to make up for
all the extra years you get!). I also know my metabolism is still high, I'm
losing weight quickly while still eating as much as normal people.

My way of eating doesn't get in the way of my social life. For me,
to have a body that felt as terrible as it felt when I was eating "the
old way" would seem to get in the way of my social life. My friends
still would want to be with me even if I turned down paella.

Same with my friends, but it would still make my life more difficult. I
would still have some stress associated with the situation, instead of just
enjoying being with my friends and eating a great meal.

I would likely thank them for the thought but explain that for health
reasons I am unable to partake of the paella.

Because you *do* have health reasons! That's a big difference. Being on a
diet is quite different.
Actually, except for my girlfriend, noone knows I am on a diet. When you
tell people, they start wanting to put you on their own diet, they start to
think you should only eat lettuce with boiled fish, and you get thousands of
conflicting opinions a day. So far, noone has really noticed the weight loss
(damn, don't they ever LOOK at my belly?) - I have started making bets with
my girlfriend about who will notice first. When they do, I will probably
tell people I'm on some fad diet ("I breakfast with raw tripe and ananas"),
this usually satisfy them much better than telling them you're actually
trying to do something serious about your weight.

I've never had a situation where I've either had to ask my friends to
prepare a special food for me, or appear rude by turning it down. Many
of the meals we have together are a joint effort and we collaborate as
to who brings what.

Cultural difference there Bringing your own food is something only for
extremelly unformal occasions here - like picnics. Otherwise it would be
felt as insulting (exceptions being bringing the wine or the dessert). Most
of my friends don't have a weight problem, so they do consider dripping
potatoes in melted cheese along with smoked ham a perfectly acceptable meal.
Most diet would require me to ask for a special meal, because not many
enforce high fat/high carb. In my case, the solution is to eat some of the
stuff in reasonnable amount.
Cultural habits also call for stopping your diet when you're receiving
friends as a courtesy (unless it's a religious or health related diet, then
you cook regular stuff for them). It would be considered extremelly rude to
have your special meal while the guests eat another. So, joint effort
wouldn't be an option either.

(Most of my friends are marrieds with children like
myself and my husband). My friends know me, and accept me for who I am.
In the same way I wouldn't feel "put out" if I made a pound of fudge for
my diabetic friend who had to turn it down.

Since most people are not aware of what I'm doing, it's not really an
option. Actually, as a diabetic, I would eat that fudge of yours That
thing is just too good to pass. However, I would eat it at the end of a real
meal and certainly not a whole pound of it (actually, I'm having the hardest
time keeping enough hunger to reach dessert lately)! Moderation is usually
very well accepted, except by the people who either have themselves a
problem with food (the only affection I can deliver is food or I am what I
cook) or the ones who really don't want you to lose weight (the tempters).

I do have such freedom. I have considerate friends and I have
consideration for them. Many people have other reasons than just "being
on some fad diet" to turn down certain foods.

You do have one of these better reasons.
It's not a problem of consideration, it's a problem of how far remote your
friends are (being invited at a friend of a friend of a friend for instance)
and how many people are invited (inviting 15 people which each one being on
his own weird diet can be a nightmare). It's also a problem of politeness,
unless I had a real health problem, I would feel rude to ask people to take
more consideration for me than they would for the rest of the guests. I
don't know how it is in the USA, but here most people on a diet just stop
having a social life. They eat their powdered stuff (those are very popular)
while their co-workers eat at the restaurant, and they just stay at home the
evening.

Let me clarify by saying that I am not on Atkins, but I have read the
entire book. Many people associate the Atkins diet with a lifetime of
only eating meat and salad vegetables. However, there is a far wider
variety of food "allowed" on it than that. There are "phases" of the
diet which allow grains and fruits and other things.

I just downloaded Atkin's book, I will probably read some of it...
My problem with Atkins (or low carbs in general) is not because they let you
eat far or whatever. Low fat has always felt crazy to me anyway. My problem
is because it's still a diet, it works by further removing you from being a
normal regulated eater. And for many people, Atkins still mean they can eat
as much as they want as far as there is no carb. That's the simplification
that is being repeated by the medias, and as a consequence, that's what most
people think it is.

Well, like I said, it's unfortunate that 90% of the continent (North
America being the one I am in) has an obsession with putting sugar and
flour as a filler in a lot of the food.

I wouldn't call that "gastronomy" I don't think corn syrup has anything
to do with gastronomy. I do believe that flour as a room in gastronomy
(hell, my country is very serious about bread - though we don't put
additives as you do and we use a flour that is less white), but using tons
of flour in pre-made meals to give them the texture they can't achieve on
their own is not gastronomy.
If you look at your continent, there are a wider variety of food than what
is available in fast food... I see nothing wrong with Chili con carne, cajun
food or even buritos...

Low carbing found me by default, I didn't go looking for it. I simply
took away foods which were doing me more harm than good and by default
it turned out to be low-carb. For me, it's about ingredients, not carb
counts.

Then, it's different. It came from a combination of your own tastes and the
limitations caused by your illness. I can respect that. I haven't bothered
checking exactly what I eat, I don't even bother with calories, but I'm
certainly not eating low fat. Low fat is just depressing and tasteless (a
good deal of the aromas are contained in the fat). I know I'm eating rather
high protein, because I love red meat (though I'm trying to bring in some
fish and vegetal protein sources as well). I'm also eating low fast-carbs.
Except for the difference that I can chunk gluten as a snack, I'm probably
not on a very different diet than yours. It's just that the average balance
is not a rule, it's just a matter of tastes - if I want to eat a high carb
meal, I won't even think in term of high carb, I will just eat the meal I
fancy.

My diet is very balanced. I just don't eat the same repertoire you eat.
I eat all kinds of vegetables, protein dishes, rice, but not every day,
sometimes even (hang on to your hat) corn bread that my friend prepares
for me, Ahhh but these are not low-carb things you say.

Balanced = balanced in macro-nutriments, not healthy That's what I meant
anyway.
But you see, this is my problem with low carb. Many people claim to be
eating low carb, but once you dig a bit, they are actually eating a rather
balanced diet. The thing they are doing is that they are certainly not
eating low fat or high carb. I see nothing wrong there, both were crazy
extremes. Actually, it seems to me many people are using the "low carb" flag
as a way to fend off the low fat nazism that seems to be the norm in the
USA.
If I look at your diet, it just sounds balanced to me. You're eating mainly
slow carbs and no sugars, you have not removed fats or proteins from your
meals, and from time to time, you indulge in food you like even if it
doesn't fit your plan. Sounds very reasonnable to me. You're not putting
yourself under strong restriction, which is probably why you're not bingeing
either. You have just a given dietetary pattern that is your own, just like
I have mine. And like mine, yours probably shifts slightly with seasons, moo
d or whatever. I would be tempted not to call it a diet, feels rather like
hygiene to me.
The problem is that when you're counted among the successes, you will get
attached to all kind of things, including Atkins, induction for life or just
doing plain stupid stuff as long as it is no carb, which don't have much to
do with your actual diet.

I have the freedom now to walk for miles
without huffing and puffing (this occured even before any significant
weight was lost, about a week after changing my lifestyle), to not
invest lots of money on antacids, and a whole host of other
"unexplainable" minor, but annoying complaints I used to go running to
the doctor for.

Antiacids? That for stomach burns? Why would you have to do that??? If a
diet caused me stomach burns, I would drop it ASAP!
I experienced about the same thing, though stopping the cigarette did the
thing for me about the huffing issue I certainly feel more ease with
moving my body.

It's almost impossible to make a generalization about what people on
low-carbohydrate diets eat or don't eat, and why, and be correct. The
media loves to slant things to create a sensational thing to talk about,
and very little of what I've read about low-carbohydrate dieting from
the news is anywhere close to reality.

The problem is that the news set the reality. Moderation seems very hard for
many people, most people operate on a manicheist mode, and this is even more
true for the people on diets. If the media say "low fat", you can be sure
people will go on 15% fat or less and utterly ruin their health and then
rebound happilly to even heavier than they were before. Of course, low fat
was initially only 30-40% energy from fat. Now that people hear "low carb",
what exactly do you think they will do? Do you bet on them following a
relatively sane diet like you do, or do you bet on them having three T-bones
a day? Our countries are full of people who want a magic solution, they want
to eat as much as they can and lose weight. The stupider the diet, the
happier they will be. They tried losing weight by eating ananas, grapefruit,
dissociated meals, Mayo... When they hear "low carb" all over the medias,
their first thought will be that they should bath themselves in animal
fat...

Steve Knight wrote:

I would like to know what eating right is?

Poor disadvantaged right handed folks looking at some
chopsticks and wondering what to do, in this leftie's
opinion ;^)

There is no one "right" way to eat. Diets that lead
to healthy populations run from almost 100% raw meat
among the few Eskimos and Inuits who still live the
traditional hunting lifestyle to nearly 100% root
vegitables among mountain dwelling subsistance farmers.

This is why both low carb and low fat diets work for
some percentage of the population.

But there are certain common trends. The more variety
the better. Eating naturally occuring (pre domestication)
foods beats eating domesticated foods beats factory
produced foods. Having the option to eat until stuffed
at any time of any day is a problem. Systems of eating
that include a lot of walking to get to the food beat
systems with a conveyor belt so you never have to get off
the sofa. Stuff like that.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
But there are certain common trends. The more variety
the better. Eating naturally occuring (pre domestication)
foods beats eating domesticated foods beats factory
produced foods. Having the option to eat until stuffed
at any time of any day is a problem. Systems of eating
that include a lot of walking to get to the food beat
systems with a conveyor belt so you never have to get off
the sofa. Stuff like that.

Another option is to built diet around cultural diets :
- They come with plenty of already existing tasty recipes
- If the culture managed to survive, it's diet is usually reasonnable
healthy
For instance if you look at Indian vegetarism, it's built around products
that provide all the amino-acids you need. I guess the people who did not
follow this didn't died an awfull death, and people adapted it until they
survived.
If you look at France, the south western part built a diet around large
quantity of duck fat, beans, wine and fresh vegetables. That's one of the
area of the world where life expenctancy is at its highest, and with the
lowest rate of heart diseases. South east is the classical mediterranean
diet, not very original. Western coast has mixed high butter intake with
lots of fish and sea food - the fish offset the cholesterol and butter is
high in CLA (anti-carcinogenic).
The problem in the USA is that the established cultural food is still weak,
with the country being still young. And the food and fast food industries
have devolved this cultural eating into a freaky version of it. Moreover,
they have introduced stuff, like hydrogenation, which should have never been
in a diet in the first place. To make things worse, various diet crazes have
made this diet more and more artificial : first removing fat (that is,
replacing real butter and unsaturated fat with tons of trans fat and adding
lots of fast carbs in the process and adding flavors since they were
dissolved in the fat), then removing carbs (since you don't have much left,
you need lots of stuff to create taste and create volume and texture). In
the name of healthy eating, we have created food that is anything but
healthy. I mean, the recipe for real bread is : flour (usually not totally
white, bread is "low quality" flour normally), water, leaven (non chemical)
and salt, point. Now, check the content of what is called bread by the food
industry...

The problem in the USA is that the established cultural food is still weak,
with the country being still young. And the food and fast food industries
have devolved this cultural eating into a freaky version of it. Moreover,
they have introduced stuff, like hydrogenation, which should have never been
in a diet in the first place. To make things worse, various diet crazes have
made this diet more and more artificial : first removing fat (that is,
replacing real butter and unsaturated fat with tons of trans fat and adding
lots of fast carbs in the process and adding flavors since they were
dissolved in the fat), then removing carbs (since you don't have much left,
you need lots of stuff to create taste and create volume and texture). In
the name of healthy eating, we have created food that is anything but
healthy. I mean, the recipe for real bread is : flour (usually not totally
white, bread is "low quality" flour normally), water, leaven (non chemical)
and salt, point. Now, check the content of what is called bread by the food
industry...



90% or more of the food at a grocery store should never be eaten. I lot of it if
not all has stemmed from laziness or lack of time.
plus greed for producing such garbage.
snapple sold us on the greatest stuff on earth. but they come out with this
god awful meal replacement that is mostly sugar. who but someone that only cared
about the bottom line would make such crap??
now we are seeing really crappy low carb stuff. Just like we did with low fat.
all of the fake fats and the fake sugars that are such crap.
everything aimed for kids is really sweet. well that sure makes it easy to eat
right as an adult.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

Steve Knight wrote:

90% or more of the food at a grocery store should never be eaten.

Exactly. I hate the excuse of "Oh It's a large part of 'culture'". It
is not my fault that the food is there, NOR is it MY responsibility to
eat it. I am not a human garbage can. It's bad enough food companies
have to resort to making OTHER people pay for their waste products
instead of disposing of them themselves.


CM

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Exactly. I hate the excuse of "Oh It's a large part of 'culture'". It
is not my fault that the food is there, NOR is it MY responsibility to
eat it. I am not a human garbage can. It's bad enough food companies
have to resort to making OTHER people pay for their waste products
instead of disposing of them themselves.

I don't see what hydrogenated fats, corn syrup and similar stuff have to do
with *culture*. All they have to do with is industry (and lobbies). I'm sure
the *traditionnal* American way of eating is not that unhealthy, and the
human body has some room to adapt before a diet is so bad it will start to
hurt it. The problem is that the traditionnal way of eating has been morphed
by the industry into something that looks like it, doesn't really taste like
it, and certainly does not feel the same way to your body.

On the occasions I visited the USA (only NCY and San Francisco, but my
girlfriend spent three weeks on the roads in Louisiana), I was actually
surprised that it was possible to eat very good tasting stuff that also
happened to be reasonnably healthy. But I was also surprised at how low
quality stuff like McDonalds (or KFC or Taco Bell) are. Actually, while
visiting NYC, I wondered why people were going to these instead of the
nearby salad bars where the burgers where incredibly tastier (and cheaper).
The big surprise is that I also have McDonalds in Paris (it seems they're
much more successful here than in the USA). But the food and service is
"higher" quality (they're very heavy on traceability, hygiene, throwing away
stuff that has been made more than 5 minutes ago...), the portions are
smaller, salads have been around for a whole decade, the law is very strict
with oil quality... We had the mad cow disease, and the whole fast food
industry freaked out - so they do everything they can to avoid any
suspicion.

If you compare traditionnal hamburger/fries to what McDonalds serves, you
will see what I mean. The traditionnal version is high calorie (which just
means you should eat less of it), but highly satisfying, the French fries
are made with vegetable oil that hasn't been used 18 hours a day for the
last week, the meat is good quality... In the McDonalds or whatever version,
the French fries are made with some "frying preparation" which is pure
hydrogenated oils loaded with trans fat, the buns use flour as white as
possible, the meat is the cheapest thing that can still pass for meat - and
it's still as high calorie and is *nowhere* as satisfying. Same with real
buritos vs Taco Bell's. Or real Southern style fried chicken vs KFC. Or
homemade meals vs pre-made ones. It's the "same" meals, but they have grown
less and less satisfying, leaving you hungry again sooner and sooner, and
they come loaded with tons of stuff that doesn't belong into food.

Lictor wrote:
"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Exactly. I hate the excuse of "Oh It's a large part of 'culture'". It
is not my fault that the food is there, NOR is it MY responsibility to
eat it. I am not a human garbage can. It's bad enough food companies
have to resort to making OTHER people pay for their waste products
instead of disposing of them themselves.

I don't see what hydrogenated fats, corn syrup and similar stuff have to do
with *culture*.

Exactly. But some people seem to insist that such things are part of
our "culture", and eliminating them is "deprivation" LOL

Crafting Mom wrote in news:vIXdc.24794
:

Exactly. But some people seem to insist that such things are part of
our "culture", and eliminating them is "deprivation" LOL

If nobody buys it - it will cease to exist. It's that easy.

--
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03

SnugBear wrote:
Crafting Mom wrote in news:vIXdc.24794
:

Exactly. But some people seem to insist that such things are part of
our "culture", and eliminating them is "deprivation" LOL

If nobody buys it - it will cease to exist. It's that easy.

I may not buy it, but it'll exist.
Like I said, it's not my problem, and not my responsibility to ensure
that it's not a problem for other people.
CM