almond "flour"

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Luna wrote:

Which does a disservice to people who really _are_ allergic to certain
foods. Pretty soon everyone will just assume that "allergic" is code
for "on a diet" and they won't be so careful with what they serve to
others. "Oh, she says she's allergic to peanuts, but she's probably
just on that diet, it won't really hurt her to give her that chicken
with the peanut sauce."

Yeah, but this in itself assumes that all real allergic reactions are
necessarily serious/lifethreatening. I'm really, truly, you can ask my
allergist allergic to aspirin and other NSAIDs, but that doesn't mean I'd
fall down in anaphalactic shock if I took an Aleve by mistake. Or, at
least I haven't so far. There are a wide range of possible reactions one
can have to an allergenic food or other substance.

I'm not big on lying as a means of defending ones' food choices, but the
idea that people doing so lessens the seriousness w/ which others view
allergies ignores the fact that not all reactions are dramatic. It also
ignores the fact that people routinely minimize the possibility of
allergic reactions in others. This isn't, for the most part, because
they've been desensitized by people lying about having allergies, it's
because, well, because people are stupid and inconsiderate.

Martha




In article ,
Bev-Ann wrote:

I know someone who just says she's allergic to whatever non-plan food being
offered so there are no questions as to why she won't have any. :-)

on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:41:14 GMT, Jennifer
wrote:

This may sound simplistic, but it does work... When it comes to LC, I
discovered that I had to change "Can't" to "Don't" in my thinking.

I "can't" eat pasta... means "Poor me, someone or something is not allowing
me to eat pasta". I have no choice. It's beyond my control. (which also
means that sometimes if I do eat pasta, then it's a "cheat" and there is
the ensuing guilt and shame for cheating).

I "don't" eat pasta... means that I have made a choice, it's not something
that's part of my life. I am in control. (which also means that sometimes
if I do eat pasta, I have just decided at that moment to make a different
choice... no guilt, it's just my decision at that moment).

An bonus to this way of thinking and talking is when you are out and about
and someone offers you something you would rather not eat at the moment,
don't works better than can't to get them to understand.

If you tell them you can't have ice cream, they will tell you can... that
just a little won't hurt. If you tell them you don't eat ice cream... what
are they going to say? Yes you do? And if they say, "well you used
to"... you can always say "I don't anymore". ; )

-----
Bev



--
Sig pending

"Luna" wrote in message
...
Which does a disservice to people who really _are_ allergic to certain
foods. Pretty soon everyone will just assume that "allergic" is code
for "on a diet" and they won't be so careful with what they serve to
others. "Oh, she says she's allergic to peanuts, but she's probably
just on that diet, it won't really hurt her to give her that chicken
with the peanut sauce."


People already think just a little bit won't hurt, I have an acquaintance
whose friend will never make that mistake again after she went into
anaphylactic shock because there was a tiny amount of a dairy product in a
dish she was served.

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
ups.com...

She should try the entire Atkins process. Then she would
discover exactly what she's intolerant of. Food intolerances
are half of the Atkins process. It's an isolation system
that uses a challenge process. Induction removes all but
two common intolerance foods.


Shellfish and soy?

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

None Given wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

She should try the entire Atkins process. Then she would
discover exactly what she's intolerant of. Food intolerances
are half of the Atkins process. It's an isolation system
that uses a challenge process. Induction removes all but
two common intolerance foods.

Shellfish and soy?

I should have added "mild": two common mild intolerance
foods. They are dairy and eggs.

Shellfish allergies tend to be severe so anyone with
a known shellfish allergy should already know it and
ignore the fact that shellfish is allowed on Induction.

Soy is a legume, so a strict interpretation of the
carb ladder does not allow soy during Induction. To
pull off a vegitarian Induction may be necessary
to ignore this detail and eat soy. So a non-strict
version of Induction would have three common
intolerance foods.

I like to advise folks several months in to try a
week or two without eggs then add eggs back in. See
if your health improves while off eggs then gets
worse against while back on eggs. Then in a different
month try the same going dairy free.

Imagine Induction without eggs and dairy. I don't
think the Atkins Nutritional Approach would be nearly
as popular without those options in the first two
weeks.

.. Assuming Dr Phil style that overeating is only
psychological is a mistake. Assuming Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake.

this is a misrepresentation of Atkins. Atkins is specific that overeating
can be caused by BOTH physical and psychological triggers.

Sid...

sprudil wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

. Assuming Dr Phil style that overeating is only
psychological is a mistake. Assuming Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake.

this is a misrepresentation of Atkins. Atkins is specific that overeating
can be caused by BOTH physical and psychological triggers.

The Atkins Nutritional Approach addresses only the physical
aspects in the directions.

There are plenty of points that Dr A mentions, supports,
and then basically wishes you well on the implmentation.
Judging the right amount of dietary fat or protein is one
example of this - Atkins has you count carbs and figures
the others will work out okay. Mention of psychological
issues is another. It's mentioned but no methods are
offered.

I don't mind that the book specializes in the physical
aspects. The book has to be small enough to lift easily.
If it mentioned everything it would be enormous and it
would not be popular. Beyond that, the physical aspects
are subject to objective testing and they are better
understood. I regularly write about the dance of hormones
in level after level of feedback loops, well beyond what
is discussed in the Atkins books. That level of
understanding of psychological issues, I'd love to find it
documented somewhere.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
sprudil wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

. Assuming Dr Phil style that overeating is only
psychological is a mistake. Assuming Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake.

this is a misrepresentation of Atkins. Atkins is specific that
overeating
can be caused by BOTH physical and psychological triggers.

The Atkins Nutritional Approach addresses only the physical
aspects in the directions.

Actually it addresses both but doesnt focus on the psychological.


I don't mind that the book specializes in the physical
aspects.

Here you use the term specializes which is fair enough but your original
characterization was not.

Sid...

sprudil wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

. Assuming Dr Phil style that overeating is only
psychological is a mistake. Assuming Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake.

this is a misrepresentation of Atkins. Atkins is specific that
overeating
can be caused by BOTH physical and psychological triggers.

The Atkins Nutritional Approach addresses only the physical
aspects in the directions.

Actually it addresses both but doesnt focus on the psychological.

I don't mind that the book specializes in the physical
aspects.

Here you use the term specializes which is fair enough but your original
characterization was not.

Atkins mentions psychological issues. He does not offer
methods for doing anything about psychological issues.
It looks like we disagree on what "addresses" means. For
you it includes mention, for me it includes some sort of
suggested action, if I understand what you've written.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
sprudil wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

. Assuming Dr Phil style that overeating is only
psychological is a mistake. Assuming Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake.

this is a misrepresentation of Atkins. Atkins is specific that
overeating
can be caused by BOTH physical and psychological triggers.

The Atkins Nutritional Approach addresses only the physical
aspects in the directions.

Actually it addresses both but doesnt focus on the psychological.

I don't mind that the book specializes in the physical
aspects.

Here you use the term specializes which is fair enough but your original
characterization was not.

Atkins mentions psychological issues. He does not offer
methods for doing anything about psychological issues.
It looks like we disagree on what "addresses" means. For
you it includes mention, for me it includes some sort of
suggested action, if I understand what you've written.

Atkins does not spend a lot of time about how you can champion your inner
child or pshychoanalyze yourself.

Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake.

Your use of the word *only* is simply not true. When you change it to
*focus* or *addresses* you are creating a continuum which is ok and we can
argue degree or emphasis.

I can certainly find references that deal with tempation, or ex "but what if
we're not talking about an addictive craving or a simple impulse that can be
satisfied by a change in body chemistry?", "Is it possible that part of
your weight problem is emotional? You may be using food as nurse, mother, or
comforter, as well as a source of nutrition.". Look in DANDR The Psychology
of Weight Loss etc. Atkins for Life "identifying real hunger" etc.

Whether Dr Phil is saying that overeating is only psychological, I can't
speak to that. Don't know Dr Phil beyond "is it working for you?"

Dr A on the other hand clearly sees both although his focus is on the
physical.

When you go through induction and you identify trigger foods you don't know
whether those foods are causing you to overeat because of a physical
reaction or a psychological association. You just learn to avoid those
foods. That's his primary strategy. In other parts of his books he offers
what he calls practical responses to dealing with emotional eating. He does
offer methods for dealing with psychological issues and suggested actions
and you don't have to look hard to find them.

But clearly his focus is not on the psychological to the extent that you
describe Dr Phil.

Sid...