question about induction

Hi all,

thanks for the great advice. I am finally starting to clear up and doing
things right. Question: let's say that a menu calls for 9 oz of fish. I
understand that I can change the kind of fish with another always keeping an
eye on the carb count but can I change with some meat for example?

P.S. what are those numbers that some of you put at the end of your msg?

Thanks.

Augie wrote:
|| Hi all,
||
|| thanks for the great advice. I am finally starting to clear up and
|| doing things right. Question: let's say that a menu calls for 9 oz
|| of fish. I understand that I can change the kind of fish with
|| another always keeping an eye on the carb count but can I change
|| with some meat for example?
||

?? I don't think this is really a question about induction is it? Perhaps
you're considering using some carby or processed meat? All of the real
non-processed meats are allowed on induction. If you use beef in a recipe
that calls for fish, your results may not be to your liking, but that's
because you made a poor substitution, not because the of the carb count of
beef. If you used corned beef hash, for example, the carb count might not
be suitable (I don't really know what the carb count of corned beef hash is,
that was just an example).


|| P.S. what are those numbers that some of you put at the end of your
|| msg?

beginning weight/current weight/goal weight

||
|| Thanks.

In article , says...
Hi all,

thanks for the great advice. I am finally starting to clear up and doing
things right. Question: let's say that a menu calls for 9 oz of fish. I
understand that I can change the kind of fish with another always keeping an
eye on the carb count but can I change with some meat for example?

You can do whatever you want as long as you keep track of the carbs and, to a
certain extent, calories. If you substitute meat for fish, just look up the
nutritional values for the meat and factor it into the total. If you are asking
if you should use 9 oz of meat instead of 9 oz of fish, that really depends on
how much you want to use. Meat is more dense than fish, so it would take up less
space for the same weight.

--
Saffire
205/148/125 - 5'1.5"
Atkins since 6/14/03
Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333

In article , says...
Hi all,

thanks for the great advice. I am finally starting to clear up and doing
things right. Question: let's say that a menu calls for 9 oz of fish. I
understand that I can change the kind of fish with another always keeping an
eye on the carb count but can I change with some meat for example?

You can do whatever you want as long as you keep track of the carbs and, to a
certain extent, calories. If you substitute meat for fish, just look up the
nutritional values for the meat and factor it into the total. If you are asking
if you should use 9 oz of meat instead of 9 oz of fish, that really depends on
how much you want to use. Meat is more dense than fish, so it would take up less
space for the same weight.

--
Saffire
205/148/125 - 5'1.5"
Atkins since 6/14/03
Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333

"Augie" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

thanks for the great advice. I am finally starting to clear up and doing
things right. Question: let's say that a menu calls for 9 oz of fish. I
understand that I can change the kind of fish with another always keeping
an
eye on the carb count but can I change with some meat for example?

P.S. what are those numbers that some of you put at the end of your msg?

Thanks.



What they said.

I'm of the opinion that low-carbing results in lower calorie without hunger.
And that it does burn fat, rather than muscle and fat equally.

I've had several female friends tell me that when they wanted to lose weight
they tried low-fat first, and they complained that they lost the boobs
first, while keeping the massive belly and butt. On low-carb, they more or
less got the boobs back, but did lose the belly and butt.

I do not have first-hand experience with this, only going by what they are
saying, but I will say that low-carbing allowed me to keep most everything a
normal guy should have, while also losing the belly and the butt.

Once you spend some time in the regimen, you won't need to count anything.
You'll just know which foods will work for you, and which foods won't. It's
a wonderful lifestyle, and one that all who choose it find it easy to do
forever.

"Augie" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

thanks for the great advice. I am finally starting to clear up and doing
things right. Question: let's say that a menu calls for 9 oz of fish. I
understand that I can change the kind of fish with another always keeping
an
eye on the carb count but can I change with some meat for example?

P.S. what are those numbers that some of you put at the end of your msg?

Thanks.



What they said.

I'm of the opinion that low-carbing results in lower calorie without hunger.
And that it does burn fat, rather than muscle and fat equally.

I've had several female friends tell me that when they wanted to lose weight
they tried low-fat first, and they complained that they lost the boobs
first, while keeping the massive belly and butt. On low-carb, they more or
less got the boobs back, but did lose the belly and butt.

I do not have first-hand experience with this, only going by what they are
saying, but I will say that low-carbing allowed me to keep most everything a
normal guy should have, while also losing the belly and the butt.

Once you spend some time in the regimen, you won't need to count anything.
You'll just know which foods will work for you, and which foods won't. It's
a wonderful lifestyle, and one that all who choose it find it easy to do
forever.