My Modified LC plan

"JKconey" wrote:

*... When
I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no
butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and
meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion
control.

Portion control isn't modified. Both low fat and low carb are
supposed to be about being able to acheive portion control
without hunger. Think all you like about either being all you
can eat but they aren't and never have been.

Your system of using prepared meals is a good one if you
are able to maintain it for a long time. Once on a working
plan, any strategy that keeps you on the working plan longer
is indeed a good idea. New posters like to think that the
losing is the hard part, but essentially everyone eventually
realizes it's the keeping it off that's the hard part.

wrote:
Portion control isn't modified. Both low fat and low carb are
supposed to be about being able to achieve portion control
without hunger.
Think all you like about either being all you
can eat but they aren't and never have been.

Once again, the issue here is obviously the balance between efficiency and
pleasure. If someone is content to eat nothing but meat and fat until hunger is
satiated, pure low-carb will work for them. But, most of us are used to some
amounts of carbs in our diet. Some of us may feel like a meal is incomplete
without carbs in some form. You can tell people all about how well a purely
low-carb diet works for the body and achieves weight loss, but as you say, the
problem is keeping weight off rather than initially losing it. Why do you think
that problem exists? It exists because most people cannot sustain a low-carb
diet because carbs are part of nearly every civilization's culinary culture.
Granted, in most cultures, those carbs do not come from high fructose processed
corn syrup or unbleached wheat flour; they may come from naturally occurring
fruits and whole grains. But, carbs contain everything from needed nutrients to
craved flavors and textures. So, the answer to why people fail on low-carb
diets is that they have no real plan for bringing certain carbs back in.
Knowing all this, I thought I could be polite to my in-laws and only taste
their dazzling desserts. I obviously didn't want to sit there during meals
eating my sugar free gello while they enjoyed home made pies and cakes. So, I
partook and paid. It's been relatively easy for me to get back on the wagon
because we don't usually keep unhealthy carbs in the house. I don't have to go
out every day for work, don't get free food in grad school and am therefore
less tempted during daily activities. But, you have people out here that
associate food in general and carbs in particular with cherished social
activities, during which few provisions are made for them to feel included
while staying on plan. Things are getting better in many quarters, but not good
enough. On gigs, if I haven't eaten before leaving, I am often confronted with
absolutely no suitable low-carb choices.

Bottom line, it's not enough to remind people how well low-carb diets work
because people don't always decide what to eat based on what's best for their
bodies. People go off LC diets not by making momentous decisions to stop, but
rather in hundreds of seemingly innocuous situations where they make food
choices based on other needs besides pure efficiency. Some of those other needs
include acculturation, inclusion, a desire to socialize without being
different, an aesthetic appreciation of carbs' texture or flavor, hunger and
affordability. It's not enough to tell people to stay on plan because it works;
if you really want to help, find out why people decide to stray and come up
with practical alternatives. In most cases, even one portion of carbs per day
will not seriously impact weight loss; the Heller diet is based around this
principle. Even during my recent dessert extravaganza, I was eating on plan for
two meals of each day because I knew that would minimize the damage and help
with my cravings. The other night driving home with a friend from our gig, he
stopped for snacks and drinks. Rather than eat whatever he brought, I asked for
beef jerky and mixed nuts. That way, I got something I could eat plus the
social experience of snacking with him. However, at the gig, food had been
brought in for us and there wasn't enough chicken or pork chops by the time we
arrived, which meant I had to eat more rice and beans than I wanted in order to
quell my hunger. I had no way of knowing that in order to anticipate it by
bringing my own food or stopping for some. There was also nowhere to go for
supplemental nourishment before the gig began. I encounter many such situations
in life, all of which can add up to a man off plan. Sometimes, I give in an pay
for it later. Other times, I stick to my guns and either do without, bring my
own food or stick to available LC options. But yes, even with plenty of LC food
around me, there are times when I want some carbs.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
wrote:

Portion control isn't modified. *Both low fat and low carb are
supposed to be about being able to achieve portion control
without hunger.
Think all you like about either being all you
can eat but they aren't and never have been.

Once again, the issue here is ...

That you've never read the book for the plan you're discussing.

If someone is content to eat nothing but meat and fat until hunger is
satiated, pure low-carb will work for them.

That won't work and sure enough it's not what the book says
for any low carb plan.

... but as you say, the
problem is keeping weight off rather than initially losing it. Why do you think
that problem exists?

Among other reasons because some people have addictive
behavior patterns in reaction to eating specific foods and there
is eternal pressure that "no food should be forbidden" directly
causes they folks off their plan.

Among other reasons that pressure to fall off *any* plan no
matter what it is is constant and unending. The social
pressure is a lot more intense for low carbers but it exists
and is endless for low fatters, calorie counters, you name it.

Among other reasons that folks like you never bother to read
the book for the plan they discuss.

... So, the answer to why people fail on low-carb
diets is that they have no real plan for bringing certain carbs back in.

If you don't read the book. If you actually *do* read the book
there are instructions for exactly that. And I'm not only
referring to Atkins here - Every single published low carb plan
that has survived for any length of time in fact has much of its
text about adding carb bearing foods to your diet.

Knowing all this, I thought I could be polite to my in-laws and only taste
their dazzling desserts. I obviously didn't want to sit there during meals
eating my sugar free gello while they enjoyed home made pies and cakes. So, I
partook and paid.

And did you discover that you have an addictive behavior
pattern in response or that you did not? If you did, get back
on the wagon and screw nonsensical ideas that "being polite"
equals giving in to pressure to eat poison. It's not polite for
them to press toxic foods on you.

It's been relatively easy for me to get back on the wagon
because we don't usually keep unhealthy carbs in the house.

Advice straight from the book for any plan.

On gigs, if I haven't eaten before leaving, I am often confronted with
absolutely no suitable low-carb choices.

And thus the endless advice on this group to eat before going
to a place you don't know their food options.

Bottom line, it's not enough to remind people how well low-carb diets work
because people don't always decide what to eat based on what's best for their
bodies.

Necessary but not sufficient. Correct.

People go off LC diets not by making momentous decisions to stop, but
rather in hundreds of seemingly innocuous situations where they make food
choices based on other needs besides pure efficiency.

Some crash and burn off plan quickly. Some drift off plan slowly.

... It's not enough to tell people to stay on plan because it works;
if you really want to help, find out why people decide to stray and come up
with practical alternatives.

And thus the discussion on this group over the years that you
seem to have missed.

In most cases, even one portion of carbs per day
will not seriously impact weight loss; the Heller diet is based around this
principle.

For folks who do get addictive behavior patterns in response to
specific foods, the Heller CAD plan is a formula aimed at crash
and burn rapid exit from the plan. Been there, done that, got that
teeshirt. For folks who do not there's a list of questions at the
front of the book to help determine if that plan will work for them.

wrote:
That you've never read the book for the plan you're discussing.

Nonsense! I've read the South Beach book twice and many of Atkins' books.

That won't work and sure enough it's not what the book says
for any low carb plan.

I never accused low-carb books of advocating meat and fat fests. Atkins and
South Beach, the two with which I am most familiar, deal with the reintegration
of fruits, vegetables and whole grains into an essentially low-carb diet.

Among other reasons because some people have addictive
behavior patterns in reaction to eating specific foods and there
is eternal pressure that "no food should be forbidden" directly
causes they folks off their plan.

I wouldn't say I'm addicted to any specific foods or generalized groups.
However, it is difficult to limit frequency and portions once the flood gates
have opened.

Among other reasons that pressure to fall off *any* plan no
matter what it is is constant and unending. The social
pressure is a lot more intense for low carbers but it exists
and is endless for low fatters, calorie counters, you name it.

Agreed.

Among other reasons that folks like you never bother to read
the book for the plan they discuss.

You should ask rather than assume.

If you don't read the book. If you actually *do* read the book
there are instructions for exactly that. And I'm not only
referring to Atkins here - Every single published low carb plan
that has survived for any length of time in fact has much of its
text about adding carb bearing foods to your diet.

Yes. Most of them simply outline the glycemic index and suggest people add
carbs back in incrementally until they either stop losing weight or regain some
weight.

And did you discover that you have an addictive behavior
pattern in response or that you did not?

I don't think my patterns addictive at all. Since they've left, I haven't
partaken of any sugar or refined flour; I feel perfectly fine with no cravings,
headaches or other symptoms.

If you did, get back on the wagon and screw nonsensical ideas that "being
polite"
equals giving in to pressure to eat poison. It's not polite for
them to press toxic foods on you.

I am back on the wagon, but I don't think those desserts are toxic. I don't
blame them for pressing poison into my hands, as you so poetically put it. My
mother-in-law doesn't see us but once or twice a year and I love her desserts.
Even a week or two of eating her desserts every night won't make me regain all
the weight I've lost because I don't continue eating carbs past their visits.

And thus the endless advice on this group to eat before going
to a place you don't know their food options.

I do that whenever feasible.

And thus the discussion on this group over the years that you
seem to have missed.

I haven't missed anything. Look, I don't pretend to have eaten those desserts
by coercion; I knew they were there, what they would do to my body and wanted
them anyway. The addiction model makes it sound as though people don't make
dietary choices. Even at the spur of the moment, when I choose to eat something
off plan, I'm making a choice and can live with it. Notice that I don't post
bellyaches or whines about how I've fallen and can't get up.

There are two components to any long-term dietary change, physiology and
psychology. The first hurdle is the cessation of hunger, which usually only
takes me two or three days on plan. But, the next is the gratification of
pleasure, which is not always easy to accomplish. That's why there was such an
explosion of low-carb bake mixes, artificial sweeteners, ice creams, syrups,
breads, pastas and candy. People feel socially, psychologically and culturally
drawn to those foods, and since they can't eat them on plan, they seek
substitutes. Agitston actually recommends eating real ice cream in small
amounts with fresh fruit rather than scarfing down larger amounts of low-fat or
even low-carb ice cream. Since I'm not a big bread eater, I can have sprouted,
whole grain or artisan breads without my body chemistry changing much.

For folks who do get addictive behavior patterns in response to
specific foods, the Heller CAD plan is a formula aimed at crash
and burn rapid exit from the plan. Been there, done that, got that
teeshirt. For folks who do not there's a list of questions at the
front of the book to help determine if that plan will work for them.


I appear to be making little headway against your addiction hypothesis. Plenty
of people want to be able to partake of some carbs at least on special
occasions or in social settings. I am not a binge eater. I've never sat down
with a bowl of cookies or a bag of potato chips while watching TV. In fact, I
go to great lengths to avoid eating alone. For me, food is an extremely
fulfilling social activity. I'd rather compensate and do without certain foods
so that I can go out to dinner with my lady or some friends and eat normally.
For people who routinely encounter carbs at work or at home, this special
occasion indulgence approach is less practical.

Orlando

lid wrote:
It would appear that the issue here is that you don't know what a
low-carb diet is.

More assumptions.

If there is a plan that advocates "nothing but meat
and fat" long-term, I'd like to know what it is.

No plan advocates that, but people often stay in induction phases for too long
because they think they'll lose more weight that way. What really happens is
that they build up resentments and feelings of deprivation that explode at any
moment.

Don't forget the veggies.

Every meal, buddy.

There are no "needed nutrients" that can only be obtained from carbs.

Wrong! Fruits, starchy vegetables and whole grains contain fiber, vitamins and
minerals.

I don't know why not.

I didn't want to feel left out by having to eat different food when I really
wanted what they were eating.

But this is association is a psychological issue -- not a problem with
the chosen low-carb diet plan. It's possible to feel included in a
social event without eating the Twinkies.

No eating plan is specifically designed to combat social pressure of inclusion
through food. Most plans focus on explaining why certain foods are benevolent
or malevolent for certain body and blood chemistry types.

There are ways around that.

I'm totally blind from birth. If I'm at a gig in entirely unfamiliar
surroundings, it's impractical and often unsafe for me to hunt around for low-
carb foods.

They do if they're serious and committed. They don't if they're not.

Right. The problem is will power. I forgot.

A low-carb WOL is just as easy and efficient. In the earlier stages,
it requires some re-education and more planning. Eventually, it
becomes second-nature.

Nonsense! It never becomes second nature if you've grown up with carbs. you
always have to think about what to eat, especially when out.

I wouldn't consider those "needs." I would consider those "wants,"
with the exception of affordability, which is a myth. It's just
another choice -- deciding which "wants" win.

Unfortunately, America's food industry makes crappy food more affordable than
fresh fruit, vegetables and protein. It's much cheaper to eat rice and beans
all the time than any low-carb foods.

It sounds to me like you're trying to say people are weak and driven
by forces they can't control, and that's just the way it is. I
heartily disagree.

I've never said that, although I've often thought it. Many people don't know
about low-carb plans of any kind; even more misunderstand whatever they've
heard. Others just can't switch their food preferences to low-carb offerings.

If you're finding that you just "want some carbs," why don't you just
find, and stick to, a plan that works for you? You've given a lot of
thought to why it can't be done. Perhaps the same effort will show
you that it can.


Gosh, where have all these assumptions about my personal eating habits come
from? I never said South Beach didn't work for me. On the contrary, it has
prove n to be easier and more satisfying than Atkins was back in the day. This
discussion started in general terms about why people fall off LC plans, and I
offered my theories, partially based on my own experiences. From the snippets
of my nutritional history that I've provided, you've managed to conclude that I
want to eat carbs all the time, that I think LC plans don't work and that I've
devoted a great deal of time and effort to proving how inefficient LC eating
is. All these assumptions are nonsense! I've been doing South Beach since last
February, which admittedly indulgent periods, but never for an entire day. This
means that no matter how I indulge, I always balance my entire day of eating
with lean protein and fresh vegetables. You have absolutely no right to make
any assumptions about my daily diet based on what I've posted here. Rather than
assume you know how I eat or what I think, you could ask me.

Orlando

lid 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.

Most people will not die if they indulge in occasional carbs; they do die if
they eat practically nothing but carbs for decades, though. The addiction model
has become so pervasive that it now constitutes a confining box outside of
which nutritionists and their followers rarely think. Look, there are people
who get cerosis of the liver without ever drinking and people who die of lung
cancer without smoking. Meanwhile, others drink and smoke straight into ripe
old age. Some people can eat vast amounts of carbs their entire lives and
exhibit no health problems, while others have to eat low-carb if they want a
fighting chance at survival. This all has to do with different metabolisms,
body types, blood chemistries, levels of physical activity and genetics. Part
of why so many people fail on diets is because they feel deprived and protest
against it. It's really difficult to get people to do without the foods they
love and with which they have many pleasant associations. That's why the best
plans exclude the smallest number of foods and make provisions for the eventual
inclusion of as many foods as possible. As I've said in other posts, very few
cultures contain naturally low-carb diets because most civilizations are based
around agriculture. Meat consumption increases in nomadic herding cultures
because they don't stay in one place long enough to grow food. But even in
agricultural societies, people work hard and burn off so many calories that
they can eat just about anything natural without being harmed. The human body
was never designed for a diet of refined foods and fattened animals injected
with antibiotics. The human body is remarkably adaptable and learns to survive
on available foods. However, what has occurred in this country is that we eat
too much, too frequently and too poorly. One piece of home made pie once or
twice a month will not kill anyone. All cultures have foods meant for special
occasions, either because they depend on seasonally available ingredients or
are labor intensive to prepare. The less we cook our own food, the more likely
we'll eat special occasion food every day because someone else is preparing it.
The best diet consists of naturally occurring ingredients and is primarily home
cooked from scratch. Anything else is a struggle when we depend on other people
selecting and preparing ingredients for us.

Orlando

Susan wrote:
I think you'll find that everyone will die after decades, no matter what
they eat.

So, why vilify people for being undercommitted just because they want some
carbs every now and then?

Orlando

"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message
...
"JKconey" writes:

I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually
put back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a
few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all
these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that
pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was
always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the
bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I
thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified
low carb, and for the first time portion control.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You say you lost 50 pounds on
low-carb, and that you don't blame it for the weight you gained back.
But then you say you've decided that portion control is the real answer.
Why isn't the answer to simply redo what lost the 50 pounds the first
time? If you lost 50 pounds while eating all the fat and meat you
wanted, then it seems you *can* eat all the fat and meat you want.

Saying "anything will work if you stick to it" doesn't make much sense.
Will eating a gallon of ice cream every day work if I stick to it? If
something fails, sticking to it will only make it fail longer.


--
Aaron -- 285/241/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz



Let me try to be clearer for you. Any recognized diet plan, Weight
Watchers, Nutrisystem, Suzanne Summers, Zone, South Beach etc etc.... will
help you be successful at losing weight. I've tried most of them, and lost
weight everytime.
I believe the reason I slowly put back the weight I originally lost on
Atkins was lack of exercise and eating too much... not because I ate lots of
carbs. I never ate sugar, bread, pasta, potato, or fruit. I did eat losts of
meat, fat, veggies, and some nuts.
Now I still eat LC but will eat a bit of fruit, and maybe just a tad of
whole wheat pita, bran cereal, and brown rice once or twice a week. I doubt
I go over 50 carbs on my worst day. My frozen meals are about 300 calories,
and I eat those maybe 2-3 times a week. My daily calorie intake is now
around 1200. I get a more varied diet, and so far it's working well, with no
cravings at all.
I'm always amazed at how the LC fanatics get so defensive when someone
finds success in a more liberal diet. If you can eat strict LC every day,
and it works for you, that's great. I get to go from 20 carbs a day to 50,
and still lose weight. What's wrong with that?


--
"When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

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. Fact is, people are
not going to post to this group of the low-carb Nazis are going to accuse
everyone of insufficient commitment if they don't eat exactly what the LC Nazi
plan mandates. I responded to someone's modified LC plan by letting them know
that it's okay to eat some carbs for pure pleasure sometimes, provided that
blood chemistry is not sacrificed and one can deal with the weight gain or
stall. It's really okay to eat for pleasure too.

Orlando

JKconey wrote:
Let me try to be clearer for you. Any recognized diet plan, Weight
Watchers, Nutrisystem, Suzanne Summers, Zone, South Beach etc etc.... will
help you be successful at losing weight. I've tried most of them, and lost
weight everytime.

That's only true to a point. When I was on a strict 1800 calorie diet, I
actually gained weight while feeling insanely hungry and behaving like a mean
grouch.

I believe the reason I slowly put back the weight I originally lost on
Atkins was lack of exercise and eating too much... not because I ate lots of
carbs. I never ate sugar, bread, pasta, potato, or fruit. I did eat losts of
meat, fat, veggies, and some nuts.

I think exercise plays a huge part in any kind of weight loss. Since it hurts
me too much to do weight bearing exercises and I downright hate exercising
anyway, I've been losing weight through diet alone. Granted, the thinner I've
become, the easier it's been to walk, which I enjoy. Still, I know I could lose
even more weight if I exercised. But, I'd rather lose weight more slowly and
spend my time doing better things than riding a tread mill.

Now I still eat LC but will eat a bit of fruit, and maybe just a tad of
whole wheat pita, bran cereal, and brown rice once or twice a week. I doubt
I go over 50 carbs on my worst day.

My diet is very similar to yours, although I eat fruit every day.

I'm always amazed at how the LC fanatics get so defensive when someone
finds success in a more liberal diet. If you can eat strict LC every day,
and it works for you, that's great. I get to go from 20 carbs a day to 50,
and still lose weight. What's wrong with that?


Nothing at all. Party on! These LC fanatics just like to put on their self
righteousness by thinking they know what true LC eating is all about.
meanwhile, we don't know how much they actually weigh or what they actually
eat; we only know what they tell us.

Orlando