What Is Low Carb To You

Tom wrote:

And that is the point I'm trying to make here. The amounts of food I ate
were not excessive according to the low-carb theory. And I didn't gorge
myself. But the amount of calories I end up eating when JUST considering
carbs are higher than I should eat if I really want to get thin. It's
just a fact of nature for me. And I suspect that is what is happening
with other very obese people like me who are used to eating a lot.


Well, that, I feel is partly true with lo-carb theory. I never felt a
total satisfaction with the amount that I ate. I could have always eaten
more. I think that part of "never feeling hungry again" should have been
explained in more detail in the Atkins' book. It perhaps should have been
worded more to suggest that the style of eating aids in suppressing
appetite. The impression I get from the book, is that a person is now given
a license to eat whatever amount they want. It doesn't explicitly say that,
but the notion is there that this is how it's done.

That is EXACTLY my complaint about Atkins. Word for word what you wrote.
All his chapters on the biology of what is happening implies (if it
doesn't say so explicitly) that if you reduce the carbs below the amount
required to throw your body into ketosis that somehow you shut off the
normal digestion process and your body becomes incapable of storing more
fat from what you eat.

He gave himself enough wiggle-room to deny actually saying that
word-for-word, but is there anybody here who can honestly deny that they
at least got that impression from reading Atkins?

In that sense I think that Atkins was being fraudelent.

ALL low-carb does (as far as weight loss is concerned) is help you
control your appetite. For some people that might be enough to reduce
your caloric intake sufficiently to get down to goal. For others (I
suspect the overwhelming majority of us) we still need to count calories
(or the equivalent, like WW points) in order to achieve goal.


It may indeed work like
that for a few people. But I think it's time to shatter some illusions about
this concept.

Right on!

I always liked the feeling of being just on the
hungry side. This gave me a good indication that I was in a calorie deficit.

When I was on my "big 700 day low-calorie diet" from 1998 to 2000 I was
like that too. It is possible, from time to time, to really throw
yourself into a "diet consciousness" where you have absolute will-power
and the sense of hunger you describe actually makes you feel good. It
gives you a high. A sense of accomplishment. It did for me too. And I
went down from a lifetime high of 137 kg (!) to about 89 kg - a loss of
105 lb. In over 700 days I never went off my diet even one time! And
then my will power fell apart and I regained all the way up to 131 kg
before starting Atkins. This morning I am at 120.5 kg.

I haven't been able to recover that "700 day diet" will-power again
really...


Absolutely. You may have to resign yourself to the fact that you will need
to do lo-carb along with calorie counting rather than rely on feelings of
satiety.

I do believe that is true. That is one reason I wonder if some herbs or
drugs that help keep you feeling full might not be a reasonable
supplement to a low-cal diet mixed with low-carb to help control appetite.

It is also why I think the low-calorie substitutions I mentioned in my
note might be a good strategy. In fact today I did substitute ground
white meat chicken for yesterday's beef/pork patties and I think they
were just as satisfying - but 1/2 the calories.

If I had to do that, I would likely use a mind trick and pretend
that my food intake is being restricted by someone else and that the amount
I eat is being controlled and I must eat what is offered because I have no
choice in the matter.

Sounds almost kinky. What kind of punishments would you get if you break
the rules?


doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:

Just those two savings I just mentioned would lower today's caloric
intake to a just 1759 calories - which would be good for any diet. The
difference - 2355 minus 1759 is 596 calories. Over a month, a daily
difference of 596 calories is 5 lb of weight lost - or not. Over a year
it could mean a 60 lb difference in results!


Rather than trying to reduce calories by using 2 lean meat patties,
try
reducing the calories by going to 1 hamburger and a salad instead. I
also
found that a lag time of 20 mins or so is required, just like after a
snack
to actually feel fullness.

I was meaning to write about this important point. I think this is also
something (maybe the major thing?) that is different about somebody
slightly overweight vs somebody extremely overweight, like me.

That 20 minutes figure definitely does not apply to me. There is a time
lag before I feel full. But for me it is about one full hour, not 20
minutes. I wonder if other obese people have that same problem.

Definitely only around 20 min for me.


Also with the cheese, if you are using it for
snacks, try replacing with a celery stick or equivolent crunchy low cal
veggie.

Just above you recommended sticking with meat instead of low-fat chicken
to get the satiety of the fat. Here you recommend replacing cheese
with a celery stick.

Yes. The reasoning was that often when I felt like snacking, it was
mainly out of boredom rather than feeling hungry. It seemed that you had
cheese in a few places on that day and assumed that's what you were doing.
Crunching on celery would give you some satisfaction of eating something,
without adding extra calories. I only snacked if I was truly hungry, but if
you are more preoccupied with food than I was, this may be an option for
you. You may have tried this already on lo-fat, I don't know.
I mentioned about the meat because, yes the affects of satisfaction comes
from fat more than protein. You wanted to use what appeared to be fat
reduced meat to reduce the calories. I thought it would be better to stay
with a fattier hamburger patty, but reduce the amount from 2 to 1. The
feelings of satisfaction for me, was not neccessarily having a full feeling
belly. More quality rather than volume kind of idea.
So this kind of leads to a different topic. Is your gauge of feeling
satisfied a feeling of fullness in the stomach? I didn't think of that
before because I sort of thought that most everyone would eat until they
"felt" like it was enough. There may be different mechanizisms or gauges for
feeling full. Somewhat like being thirsty. If I feel thirst, I usually have
one glass of water and that feels like enough. My belly though, does not
feel full. Know what I mean?

doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:

Just those two savings I just mentioned would lower today's caloric
intake to a just 1759 calories - which would be good for any diet. The
difference - 2355 minus 1759 is 596 calories. Over a month, a daily
difference of 596 calories is 5 lb of weight lost - or not. Over a year
it could mean a 60 lb difference in results!


Rather than trying to reduce calories by using 2 lean meat patties,
try
reducing the calories by going to 1 hamburger and a salad instead. I
also
found that a lag time of 20 mins or so is required, just like after a
snack
to actually feel fullness.

I was meaning to write about this important point. I think this is also
something (maybe the major thing?) that is different about somebody
slightly overweight vs somebody extremely overweight, like me.

That 20 minutes figure definitely does not apply to me. There is a time
lag before I feel full. But for me it is about one full hour, not 20
minutes. I wonder if other obese people have that same problem.

Definitely only around 20 min for me.


Also with the cheese, if you are using it for
snacks, try replacing with a celery stick or equivolent crunchy low cal
veggie.

Just above you recommended sticking with meat instead of low-fat chicken
to get the satiety of the fat. Here you recommend replacing cheese
with a celery stick.

Yes. The reasoning was that often when I felt like snacking, it was
mainly out of boredom rather than feeling hungry. It seemed that you had
cheese in a few places on that day and assumed that's what you were doing.
Crunching on celery would give you some satisfaction of eating something,
without adding extra calories. I only snacked if I was truly hungry, but if
you are more preoccupied with food than I was, this may be an option for
you. You may have tried this already on lo-fat, I don't know.
I mentioned about the meat because, yes the affects of satisfaction comes
from fat more than protein. You wanted to use what appeared to be fat
reduced meat to reduce the calories. I thought it would be better to stay
with a fattier hamburger patty, but reduce the amount from 2 to 1. The
feelings of satisfaction for me, was not neccessarily having a full feeling
belly. More quality rather than volume kind of idea.
So this kind of leads to a different topic. Is your gauge of feeling
satisfied a feeling of fullness in the stomach? I didn't think of that
before because I sort of thought that most everyone would eat until they
"felt" like it was enough. There may be different mechanizisms or gauges for
feeling full. Somewhat like being thirsty. If I feel thirst, I usually have
one glass of water and that feels like enough. My belly though, does not
feel full. Know what I mean?

doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:

And that is the point I'm trying to make here. The amounts of food I ate
were not excessive according to the low-carb theory. And I didn't gorge
myself. But the amount of calories I end up eating when JUST considering
carbs are higher than I should eat if I really want to get thin. It's
just a fact of nature for me. And I suspect that is what is happening
with other very obese people like me who are used to eating a lot.


Well, that, I feel is partly true with lo-carb theory. I never felt a
total satisfaction with the amount that I ate. I could have always eaten
more. I think that part of "never feeling hungry again" should have been
explained in more detail in the Atkins' book. It perhaps should have
been
worded more to suggest that the style of eating aids in suppressing
appetite. The impression I get from the book, is that a person is now
given
a license to eat whatever amount they want. It doesn't explicitly say
that,
but the notion is there that this is how it's done.

That is EXACTLY my complaint about Atkins. Word for word what you wrote.
All his chapters on the biology of what is happening implies (if it
doesn't say so explicitly) that if you reduce the carbs below the amount
required to throw your body into ketosis that somehow you shut off the
normal digestion process and your body becomes incapable of storing more
fat from what you eat.

That is not exactly what I was thinking about. It was more about the
appetite supression phrases that are often heard. Here's a quote from the
book that seems to indicate feelings of satisfaction and fullness, and this
type of script is common throughout the book. This is from page 32 in my
copy of DANDR. The last copyright says 2002.
"Diets come and go, but what people hope to get from them remains fairly
constant. What would you like from a weightloss program? Let your fancy run
free. Would you like to:
* be free from hunger much of the day?
* eat until you are pleasantly satisfied and full?"

There were 13 more points like that mentioning other benefits, increased
energy, etc.

I never felt the "pleasantly satisfied and full" part. I do now, but that
is because I am in a calorie balance. Somehow to me it seems more like hype
to sell books. Increased energy was another one I didn't feel. What I really
felt was slight hunger (but not as serious as low fat diets) the closer I
got to meal time. This, I think is what is usually normal. You should start
to feel a little hunger before your next meal. And I didn't feel increased
energy either. I actually felt a little weak sometimes(again not serious
weakness). My energy levels"felt" more like they were stable throughout the
day, but not a boundless feeling as it is implied in the book. I actually
enjoyed that feeling of not having the large swings of lots of energy right
after a meal and then crashing an hour or so later. So, I think there is
some validity, but not as good as the hype in the book. The way I feel now
is good, but I am not trying to lose weight right now. In fact, I am trying
to increase muscle mass, so am eating a little more.


He gave himself enough wiggle-room to deny actually saying that
word-for-word, but is there anybody here who can honestly deny that they
at least got that impression from reading Atkins?

In that sense I think that Atkins was being fraudelent.

Well, I don't see much difference to the ads on TV for all sorts of
products. But I know what you mean.


ALL low-carb does (as far as weight loss is concerned) is help you
control your appetite. For some people that might be enough to reduce
your caloric intake sufficiently to get down to goal. For others (I
suspect the overwhelming majority of us) we still need to count calories
(or the equivalent, like WW points) in order to achieve goal.

This is probably closer to the truth. Especially for big eaters. It
gives reasonably good appetite control, but the rest still requires work. It
is not effortless. If it was, there would not be so many people that are
having problems reducing. I didn't need to count calories, because I used a
feeling of "enough" rather than fullness. I don't know if that could be
called satisfying by Atkins' standards.




It may indeed work like
that for a few people. But I think it's time to shatter some illusions
about
this concept.

Right on!

I always liked the feeling of being just on the
hungry side. This gave me a good indication that I was in a calorie
deficit.

When I was on my "big 700 day low-calorie diet" from 1998 to 2000 I was
like that too. It is possible, from time to time, to really throw
yourself into a "diet consciousness" where you have absolute will-power
and the sense of hunger you describe actually makes you feel good. It
gives you a high. A sense of accomplishment. It did for me too. And I
went down from a lifetime high of 137 kg (!) to about 89 kg - a loss of
105 lb. In over 700 days I never went off my diet even one time! And
then my will power fell apart and I regained all the way up to 131 kg
before starting Atkins. This morning I am at 120.5 kg.

Iggy lost a lot of weight counting calories and then switched to lo-carb
to keep hunger in control. He didn't lose the weight by lo-carbing.


I haven't been able to recover that "700 day diet" will-power again
really...

If it worked before, it can work again. Similar to Ig.




Absolutely. You may have to resign yourself to the fact that you will
need
to do lo-carb along with calorie counting rather than rely on feelings
of
satiety.

I do believe that is true. That is one reason I wonder if some herbs or
drugs that help keep you feeling full might not be a reasonable
supplement to a low-cal diet mixed with low-carb to help control appetite.

I don't know the affects. It may work, but I think you know it would not
be magic. You would still have to work at it. Talk to your Doc about it.



It is also why I think the low-calorie substitutions I mentioned in my
note might be a good strategy. In fact today I did substitute ground
white meat chicken for yesterday's beef/pork patties and I think they
were just as satisfying - but 1/2 the calories.

Anything that you can think of to help you along is good. If it works for
you than that is the best way for you.


If I had to do that, I would likely use a mind trick and pretend
that my food intake is being restricted by someone else and that the
amount
I eat is being controlled and I must eat what is offered because I have
no
choice in the matter.

Sounds almost kinky. What kind of punishments would you get if you break
the rules?

Haha. I wasn't sure if I should have devulged my secret weapon. If I was
really embarrased about it, I wouldn't have mentioned it. I just thought
that if the mind can play tricks on a person to thwart their efforts, than a
trick can be played back to fool it. Fight fire with fire. An eye for an
eye. I'm sure many people have heard that little voice that says, "Come on,
you can have one. It won't hurt. You can start fresh tomorrow". I don't
really hear voices. It's more of a mental justification that goes on in your
mind that causes someone to act contrary to their goals. Where are my damn
pills.




doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:

And that is the point I'm trying to make here. The amounts of food I ate
were not excessive according to the low-carb theory. And I didn't gorge
myself. But the amount of calories I end up eating when JUST considering
carbs are higher than I should eat if I really want to get thin. It's
just a fact of nature for me. And I suspect that is what is happening
with other very obese people like me who are used to eating a lot.


Well, that, I feel is partly true with lo-carb theory. I never felt a
total satisfaction with the amount that I ate. I could have always eaten
more. I think that part of "never feeling hungry again" should have been
explained in more detail in the Atkins' book. It perhaps should have
been
worded more to suggest that the style of eating aids in suppressing
appetite. The impression I get from the book, is that a person is now
given
a license to eat whatever amount they want. It doesn't explicitly say
that,
but the notion is there that this is how it's done.

That is EXACTLY my complaint about Atkins. Word for word what you wrote.
All his chapters on the biology of what is happening implies (if it
doesn't say so explicitly) that if you reduce the carbs below the amount
required to throw your body into ketosis that somehow you shut off the
normal digestion process and your body becomes incapable of storing more
fat from what you eat.

That is not exactly what I was thinking about. It was more about the
appetite supression phrases that are often heard. Here's a quote from the
book that seems to indicate feelings of satisfaction and fullness, and this
type of script is common throughout the book. This is from page 32 in my
copy of DANDR. The last copyright says 2002.
"Diets come and go, but what people hope to get from them remains fairly
constant. What would you like from a weightloss program? Let your fancy run
free. Would you like to:
* be free from hunger much of the day?
* eat until you are pleasantly satisfied and full?"

There were 13 more points like that mentioning other benefits, increased
energy, etc.

I never felt the "pleasantly satisfied and full" part. I do now, but that
is because I am in a calorie balance. Somehow to me it seems more like hype
to sell books. Increased energy was another one I didn't feel. What I really
felt was slight hunger (but not as serious as low fat diets) the closer I
got to meal time. This, I think is what is usually normal. You should start
to feel a little hunger before your next meal. And I didn't feel increased
energy either. I actually felt a little weak sometimes(again not serious
weakness). My energy levels"felt" more like they were stable throughout the
day, but not a boundless feeling as it is implied in the book. I actually
enjoyed that feeling of not having the large swings of lots of energy right
after a meal and then crashing an hour or so later. So, I think there is
some validity, but not as good as the hype in the book. The way I feel now
is good, but I am not trying to lose weight right now. In fact, I am trying
to increase muscle mass, so am eating a little more.


He gave himself enough wiggle-room to deny actually saying that
word-for-word, but is there anybody here who can honestly deny that they
at least got that impression from reading Atkins?

In that sense I think that Atkins was being fraudelent.

Well, I don't see much difference to the ads on TV for all sorts of
products. But I know what you mean.


ALL low-carb does (as far as weight loss is concerned) is help you
control your appetite. For some people that might be enough to reduce
your caloric intake sufficiently to get down to goal. For others (I
suspect the overwhelming majority of us) we still need to count calories
(or the equivalent, like WW points) in order to achieve goal.

This is probably closer to the truth. Especially for big eaters. It
gives reasonably good appetite control, but the rest still requires work. It
is not effortless. If it was, there would not be so many people that are
having problems reducing. I didn't need to count calories, because I used a
feeling of "enough" rather than fullness. I don't know if that could be
called satisfying by Atkins' standards.




It may indeed work like
that for a few people. But I think it's time to shatter some illusions
about
this concept.

Right on!

I always liked the feeling of being just on the
hungry side. This gave me a good indication that I was in a calorie
deficit.

When I was on my "big 700 day low-calorie diet" from 1998 to 2000 I was
like that too. It is possible, from time to time, to really throw
yourself into a "diet consciousness" where you have absolute will-power
and the sense of hunger you describe actually makes you feel good. It
gives you a high. A sense of accomplishment. It did for me too. And I
went down from a lifetime high of 137 kg (!) to about 89 kg - a loss of
105 lb. In over 700 days I never went off my diet even one time! And
then my will power fell apart and I regained all the way up to 131 kg
before starting Atkins. This morning I am at 120.5 kg.

Iggy lost a lot of weight counting calories and then switched to lo-carb
to keep hunger in control. He didn't lose the weight by lo-carbing.


I haven't been able to recover that "700 day diet" will-power again
really...

If it worked before, it can work again. Similar to Ig.




Absolutely. You may have to resign yourself to the fact that you will
need
to do lo-carb along with calorie counting rather than rely on feelings
of
satiety.

I do believe that is true. That is one reason I wonder if some herbs or
drugs that help keep you feeling full might not be a reasonable
supplement to a low-cal diet mixed with low-carb to help control appetite.

I don't know the affects. It may work, but I think you know it would not
be magic. You would still have to work at it. Talk to your Doc about it.



It is also why I think the low-calorie substitutions I mentioned in my
note might be a good strategy. In fact today I did substitute ground
white meat chicken for yesterday's beef/pork patties and I think they
were just as satisfying - but 1/2 the calories.

Anything that you can think of to help you along is good. If it works for
you than that is the best way for you.


If I had to do that, I would likely use a mind trick and pretend
that my food intake is being restricted by someone else and that the
amount
I eat is being controlled and I must eat what is offered because I have
no
choice in the matter.

Sounds almost kinky. What kind of punishments would you get if you break
the rules?

Haha. I wasn't sure if I should have devulged my secret weapon. If I was
really embarrased about it, I wouldn't have mentioned it. I just thought
that if the mind can play tricks on a person to thwart their efforts, than a
trick can be played back to fool it. Fight fire with fire. An eye for an
eye. I'm sure many people have heard that little voice that says, "Come on,
you can have one. It won't hurt. You can start fresh tomorrow". I don't
really hear voices. It's more of a mental justification that goes on in your
mind that causes someone to act contrary to their goals. Where are my damn
pills.




doug

Tom wrote:

So this kind of leads to a different topic. Is your gauge of feeling
satisfied a feeling of fullness in the stomach? I didn't think of that
before because I sort of thought that most everyone would eat until they
"felt" like it was enough.

I'm not really sure. It might be partially satisfied by just chewing on
something...

doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote'
snipped!!
There are these really delicious donuts
they sell at Sunkus (a convenience store chain here) that are
deadly-on-any-diet. Until recently they didn't put the nutritional
information on them, but they just started to. Each donut - and they are
pretty small! - have about 600 calories (!) and about 60 carbs (!).

They are dense, fried and really good.
more snipped

Just out of curiostiy - how tall are these little donuts and how big are
they in terms of circumferences? I think just like me other low carbers are
possibly interested about the figures. Many thanks! :-)