If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
BlueBrooke wrote:
If you are as knowledgeable as you say about LC plans, then you sure hide it well. It has nothing to do with your desserts. It has to do with the misinformation you state as fact. Which misinformation? I've advocated LC eating and a move away from processed foods, just like Atkins and Agatston have. The archive of this group is full of posts that have great information about handling and eliminating cravings, dealing with and preparing for social functions and what to order at restaurants, dispelling the myths about low-carb plans -- such as calories don't count, LCers live on bacon and butter, and you need to take out a bank loan every week to pay for the groceries -- and recipes (Yes! Even desserts!) that are not only low-carb, but are also economical and quite tasty. You don't get it! There are some people for whom no amount of substitution will satisfy their desire to have carbs--even sometimes. You are a zealot. Look, I don't need to read volumes of posts about what to order in restaurants or how to prepare sugar free desserts. Most of it is common sense. If a restaurant has some LC offerings that I actually want to eat and that will satisfy my hunger, I order them. If they don't I make due with available options. You and others seem to think that people would make better low-carbers if they only had more information on how to buy meat when it's on sale or how to politely refuse that slice of wedding cake. Most people don't go off plan because of a dearth of data; they go off because they can't stand eating low-carb anymore and want their beloved foods back. Part of this stems from people doing the strictest phases of LC plans for longer than their creators originally intended. There's a reason why Atkins induction and South Beach's phase 1 are only supposed to last two weeks. Agatston address the issue of boredom quite directly. This is a support group. A pat on the back and a "We know you can't help it" isn't support. Enabling is not support. Telling someone it's okay is only setting them up for failure -- a great way to insure that they'll be back in a year, twenty pounds heavier and starting all over again. There you go with the AA support model for low-carb eating. In that model, nearly all carbs are bad. When people eat them because they want or feel they need them, they need tough love, reaffirmed commitment and panicked forboadings of their short lived future in order to get them back on plan. How well does this work for most people? Most people fall off plan when the disconnect between their plan and their acculturated sense of eating reaches a feverish pitch of contestation. As I've said earlier, strict low-carb eating is not natural to most agricultural societies. Most people eat rich or fatty foods with carbs in order to stretch them and minimize their effects. I'm not going to eat my curries with mashed cauliflower or cabbage, no matter what any of you say. Because I want my brown basmati rice with curries, I don't eat Indian food every day. I'd rather have the real thing on occasion than an ersatz substitute pumped up with motivational jargon about how good it's supposed to be. You dislike me because I'm not a zealot, because I'm telling people that they can learn to reintegrate carbs moderately without regaining weight or being humiliated into confirmity by low-carb nutcases. That's not a pat on the back. I've told many diabetic friends that the typical cereal, toast and orange juice breakfast is killing them. I haven't had a breakfast like that in years. I've advised people to do little things like cut out those baked potatoes, eat sweets once a week or try sandwich fillings without bread. I've advised sugar free desserts for people who have to have sweets every day, but whose bodies can't handle them. I oughta know; my body can't handle sugar on a regular basis. By the time the dessert tornado had run its course, I felt miserable, bloated and in minor physical pain. And yet, I know I'm going to wrap my lips around a luscious dessert sometime within the next month or so, probably only once for that week or month, without suffering any ill effects or stalling my weight loss. I am not an alcoholic or a carbaholic! I can eat carbs in moderation without being branded as a traitor to the cause. So can millions of others like me. Orlando |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
BlueBrooke wrote:
The archive of this group is full of posts that have great information about handling and eliminating cravings, dealing with and preparing for social functions and what to order at restaurants, dispelling the myths about low-carb plans -- such as calories don't count, LCers live on bacon and butter, and you need to take out a bank loan every week to pay for the groceries -- and recipes (Yes! Even desserts!) that are not only low-carb, but are also economical and quite tasty. Are you such a zealot that you can't conceive of people actually loving carbs and wanting them back in some form? This is a support group. A pat on the back and a "We know you can't help it" isn't support. Enabling is not support. Telling someone it's okay is only setting them up for failure -- a great way to insure that they'll be back in a year, twenty pounds heavier and starting all over again. Sometimes, the best support is understanding people where they're at and helping them to see a bigger picture than their short-term desires. Bottom line, people are going to eat whatever they want, regardless of how severely you or anyone else browbeats them. Rather than put them down, isn't it better to help them think more clearly about why they eat what they do, what it does to their bodies and what alternatives could possibly satisfy them while being kinder to their bodies? Orlando |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
BlueBrooke wrote:
More misinformation. A low-carb WOL does *not* mean that you can't have carbs "in some form." Which I have been doing, much to your apparent consternation. I went through phases 1 and 2 of South beach for six mostly pleasurable months. I would think the short-term desires would be the desserts and the rice, and the bigger picture would be losing weight and feeling better. But the message in your posts is the opposite of this. Balance, babe, balance! Short term desires for carbs versus long-term desires for weight loss. What a great idea! When are you going to start doing that? When are you going to start asking me how I eat rather than assume you know? I didn't bring down my fasting glucose, blood pressure and abnormally high cholesterol by eating twinkies. At most, we're talking about a total of twenty days off plan out of six months. That's really not a bad average. Orlando |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" wrote in message
You don't get it! There are some people for whom no amount of substitution will satisfy their desire to have carbs--even sometimes. You are a zealot. Look, I don't need to read volumes of posts about what to order in restaurants or how to prepare sugar free desserts. Most of it is common sense. If a restaurant has some LC offerings that I actually want to eat and that will satisfy my hunger, I order them. If they don't I make due with available options. You and others seem to think that people would make better low-carbers if they only had more information on how to buy meat when it's on sale or how to politely refuse that slice of wedding cake. Most people don't go off plan because of a dearth of data; they go off because they can't stand eating low-carb anymore and want their beloved foods back. Part of this stems from people doing the strictest phases of LC plans for longer than their creators originally intended. There's a reason why Atkins induction and South Beach's phase 1 are only supposed to last two weeks. Agatston address the issue of boredom quite directly. Zealot? Hardly. I think successful low-carber fits better. People that successfully low carb, usually don't have those kinds of cravings after awhile. In my experience, it's all the forays into "sugar-free" and substituting for what I consider to be real foods that bring those cravings on. Sure, after a person has lost the weight they want to lose, some of that can be fine on occasion, though not necessary. I've been on LC for many years, and my beloved foods are BBQ any kind of meat without commercial sauce, roasts, chicken, fish, veggies, cheese, taco salads, etc. It's JMO, and I did struggle with it when I slacked up for more than a few days. Cheri |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
"BlueBrooke" wrote in message
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 You bet it's AWESOME!!! Cheri |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
wrote: This reminded me of something. *A friend had a gosling. *It wasn't doing very well. *I don't know if it is true or not, but someone told them that the grain they were feeding the gosling had some kind of additive in it that was poisonous to baby geese (maybe adult ones, too, for that matter, but that's not really the point). * The response was, "But that's the only feed I have for him." * It died. * It's amazing the ignorance folks have about food. Watch some wild geese for a while and it's not hard to figure out what their evolved natural diet is. It's not grain, especially not grain that's been impregnated with insecticides or whatever the toxin was. It's grass and bugs and worms that wild geese eat. Most people will not die if they indulge in occasional carbs; Note the confusing use of the word carbs here. I will guess it means high glycemic load foods because all low carb plans do in fact stress eating carbs in the form of low glycemic load foods. If it were occasional there would be little obesity. Note that most folks have no clue what "occasional" even means. Watch some newbie posts for a while and you'll conclude that for some people it means "not at every sitting but definitely every day". Even weekly is too often for occasional. There are even events that are called occasional rather than annual because sometimes they skip a year so the time scale for occasional is somewhere in the range of several weeks to several years. they do die if they eat practically nothing but carbs for decades, though. False but largely irrelevant to low carbing. Eating too little carb grams do not help loss no matter what newbies wish to believe and no matter how man out of context quotes are pulled out of books. But there are stone age societies where the people eat near zero carbs for years on end and they are quite healthy. The foods they eat to acheive this are pretty disgusting to a lot of us but they aren't unhealthy in spite of not helping for weight loss. ... Some people can eat vast amounts of carbs their entire lives and exhibit no health problems, Which is why low fat programs remain popular. They work for a percentage of the population. ... As I've said in other posts, very few cultures contain naturally low-carb diets because most civilizations are based around agriculture. But the advent of agriculture is recent on an evolutionary time scale and it is associated with a huge drop in health in early generations. The trouble with the term "early generations" is it depends on how strict you are in judging the health decreases - 20,000 years later we are still in the early generations for issues like diabetes incidence. Meat consumption increases in nomadic herding cultures because they don't stay in one place long enough to grow food. As does consumption of wild vegitables. Most of human evolution was during stone age times so our bodies are still evolved for that type of diet. Nearly all but not completely all stone age hunter gatherer societies eat/ate low carb diets with lots of low carb veggies and smaller amounts of root veggies. Not surprisingly this sounds like the result of following the directions for the most popular books in the field. There are even paleolithic eating plans that work well for many people. Also note that of the few stone age societies that do eat low meat diets the foods they eat are a mix of root and low carb veggies. It ends up a low glycemic load low fat plan. Not low carb but still taking advantage of some of the standar dlow carb strategies of low glycemic load and high vegitable content. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
Susan wrote: Everyone here eats carbs daily. We're just very selective about which ones. Excuse me, but a few people assumed I had not read a single low-carb book just because I had some desserts over the past couple of weeks. I've reached a new level of understanding - Your reading comprehension is so low you and I don't even agree on what the word "read" means. You state that you have glanced at the pages of more than one low carb book. Based on your postings you have retained an extremely low percentage of the meaning and content of those books. Your postings are filled with misrepresentations of what is said in the books as a result of what you mean by the word "read". This discussion shows you have similar reading comprehension problems with the postings here as well. My use of the word "read" includes comprehension and retention. Your statement of why I've accused you of not reading the book equally misrepresents the discussion so badly I do in fact assert you haven't read either the books or the posts in this discussion by my definition that includes comprehension and retention. I responded to someone's modified LC plan It wasn't modified. It was straight out of the directions in a few of the poluar books. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
"Cheri" wrote:
Zealot? Hardly. I think successful low-carber fits better. People that successfully low carb, usually don't have those kinds of cravings after awhile. To me this is the single greatest advantage that low carb has over other types of plans. For me and for many others the lack of cravings while following the directions of what to eat allow me to practice portion control of how much to eat without getting hungry. And so I manage to lose weight without hunger except at specific short times like the first week. I tried that on low fat but I never stopped being hungry. Of course anyone who gets this lack of hunger on low fat plans should use low fat plans. IMO the best plan is one that gets customized to the individual. The reason I'm such an Atkins fan is it's a custom process based on your body's reactions not menu based after the first two weeks are completed. It seems like the percentage of the population who see lack of hunger while low carbing is higher than the percentage of the population who see lack of hunger while low fatting. In my experience, it's all the forays into "sugar-free" and substituting for what I consider to be real foods that bring those cravings on. For me there are certain trigger foods that cause cravings. If I stay away from them it hardly matters if I use the substitute foods or just have tiny portions of the real versions. As long as a carby food does not have any of my trigger ingredients it doesn't cause cravings so I have an easy time keeping portions tiny. But my main trigger food is wheat and many of the substitute foods are wheat based - I've never found a lower carb bread product that I can eat at all yet I often keep a loaf of carby but wheat free bread in the freezer. I have a slice of all-rye bread every couple of weeks rather than a slice of lower carb wheat based bread more often. Barley is not one of my trigger foods (I seem to have a specific intolerance to wheat not a general intolerance to gluten) so I can have a beer most weeks and as long as I avoid wheat beers I don't need to go with light beers or carb free whiskey. This weekend I had a bottle of a Belgian Trappist Ale. Actually only half a bottle as that brand comes in a 750 ml wine bottle size and it has more alcohol than I like in a beer so I drank half and poured out half of the large bottle. Sure, after a person has lost the weight they want to lose, some of that can be fine on occasion, though not necessary. My wife keeps thinking I must miss pasta so she gets pasta made from quinao or rice. Thing is once I discovered what wheat was doing to my body I wrote it off as toxic and I stopped missing any food that's normally made from wheat. I don't miss pasta or bread so I don't get the point of substitutes for them. I've been on LC for many years, and my beloved foods are BBQ any kind of meat without commercial sauce 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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
... "Cheri" wrote: I've been on LC for many years, and my beloved foods are BBQ any kind of meat without commercial sauce 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. I usually use dry rub, but have used a couple of the LC recipes at times, then it was just so much easier to use dry rub, that that's what I usually do. Cheri |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Idiot Proof Diet (modified) progress: | Mal | General Discussion | 1 | August 22nd, 2007 10:26 PM |
modified food starch - so, is it healthy? | oregonchick | General Discussion | 2 | January 25th, 2006 12:46 AM |
PSMF-Protein Sparing Modified Fast question!?! | Mack | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 29 | February 23rd, 2004 03:39 AM |
Modified Atkins, and still maiintaining | Rich R | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 21st, 2004 02:46 AM |
Lemon Squares (my modified version) & Liquid Splenda | Saffire | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 43 | November 11th, 2003 02:21 AM |