SAFFIRE'S WEEKLY LOW-CARB TIPS

another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................

eat ONLY when your hungry!

WOW, nice post... a lot of useful info. Thanks!

"Saffire" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

*** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- its appearance
in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***

ATKINS & OTHER LOW-CARB TIPS

- If possible, give or throw away any leftover high-carb foods you may
have in the house. I gave most of mine to a local food bank and the
rest (like opened boxes of crackers, flour, etc.) to friends and
relatives or even the trash.

- READ THE LABELS! Just because something SAYS it's low-carb, that
doesn't mean it IS. I got a free sample of something that is sold as a
low-carb item, but it had 17 carbs AFTER subtracting the fiber and even
sugar alcohols! That's not low-carb in MY book. If I were on
induction, it would have taken up almost ALL the carbs for the entire
day! BTW, in the US, nutritional labels show the total carbohydrate
count and then list the fiber as a sub-category -- it's up to YOU to
subtract the fiber. In Europe and some other countries, the fiber is
PRE-deducted, so it's up to YOU to make the distinction and count
accordingly.

- One thing I was told about (via the Atkins book) (but it didn't sink
in for the first couple of weeks until I saw a post here) was that I
could SUBTRACT the fiber count from the carb count of items, so if an
item has, for instance, 5 carbs, but 2 of them are fiber, the NET or
EFFECTIVE carbs are 3. That's important to know when you are limiting
carbs to 20 for the first couple of weeks! (NOTE that in some
countries, the fiber is PRE-subtracted on the label.)

- Pay attention to the SERVING SIZE on the nutrition label. What might
SEEM to be a good deal carb-wise (or calorie-wise, for that matter)
might actually be a miniscule portion and is almost NEVER an entire
container's worth. For instance, YOU might think an entire can of
something is ONE serving when, in reality, it's 2.5 servings.

- Pay attention when something SAYS it's zero carb per serving. US law
allows anything between 0 and .5 carbs to be labeled as ZERO carb and
anything between .6-.9 carbs to be <1 carb. It's safer to count 1 carb
or at least 1/2 carb for these items. For instance, my heavy cream says
it's zero carb per Tbl, but it actually has about .5 carb, so an entire
cup actually has EIGHT carbs. That can make a big difference when your
carb budget for the day is only TWENTY carbs!

- Keep track of what you eat. Fitday.com is an EXCELLENT way of doing
this. I use an Excel spreadsheet myself. You'd be AMAZED at how much
it can help you plan your day (or just finish it based on what you've
already had -- you may need more or less foods or types of foods).

- Measure and weigh! It's the only way to truly know how much of
anything you are getting and eyeballing it can be deceiving. You may be
eating more (or less) of something than you thought. I bought a bunch
of sets of measuring spoons at Big Lots (49 cents for a set) because I
use so many of them.

- Get in the habit of weighing and measuring things that you wouldn't
normally think to weigh and measure. For instance, I like Foster Farms
hot wings that I get in a big bag from Costco. They listed the
nutritional information for a serving size of "4 parts". I was eating
them for a year and a half before I thought to weigh them and realized
that their definition of a "part" was smaller than what I considered to
be a SMALL part. Consequently, I had been taking in about 150% of the
amount of calories and carbs that I THOUGHT I was. Then I started to
measure the bones AFTER I ate and subtracted that amount from the total
to get a more accurate count for the part that I ATE. Since all
nutrition labels in the US ALSO show the serving in grams (usually in
parentheses), regardless of whether the amount is in cups or parts or
cans, you can always figure it out based on the fact that there are 28
grams in one ounce.

- NEVER assume that the amount of servings in a container is what the
manufacturer SAYS it is. For instance, I've seen a can of sandwich
spread that said it had 2.5 servings in it. It said each serving was
1/4 cup. The entire CAN was only about 1/3 cup, so how did they get 2.5
servings out of it? I buy a single big bar of baking chocolate. The
package says it has 7 servings -- however, once you open it up, you can
see that it is scored for only FIVE bars, not SEVEN. I had to figure
out for myself how much a scored segment weighed and put THAT in my
database. It was either that or weigh it each time and try to match the
serving size on the box.

- If you have trouble with portion control, try using smaller plates or
bowls so that the servings fill the plate. Also, 1/2-cup Pyrex bowls
come in handy to hold reasonable size servings of Jello, olives, nuts,
etc.

- Trader Joe's is a great place to find all kinds of great low-carb
stuff if you have one in your area. I particularly like their Punjab
Spinach Sauce.

- The general consensus of this newsgroup seems to be to STAY AWAY from
the low-carb bars & shakes, at least during induction. It is felt by
many that the sugar alcohols used to sweeten them can a) have a laxative
and/or STRONG gassy effect (that means you aren't metabolizing them and
absorbing many of the carbs), or b) some people DO metabolize the sugar
alcohols, so they ARE eating the FULL carb amount, not just the net
carbs (but hey, you're not crapping your pants). I view it as a damned
if you do and damned if you don't proposition, so pick your poison.
They may be convenient, but they aren't NECESSARY for low-carbing. They
are also VERY expensive and often taste like dirt. As you experiment
with cooking and eating different things, you'll find yourself gaining a
whole new appreciation for truly GOOD foods and won't want to WASTE your
precious carbs on something that isn't really WORTH it. Many of us find
that we'll buy something, decide it's not that great and simply throw it
out because we KNOW we can do better than THAT :-)

- Aspartame can trigger cravings in some people. Splenda usually goes
over very well, although some people DO have problems tolerating it. I
switched to using liquid Splenda in a syrup base, which truly has zero
carbs, as opposed to packets, which have .5-.9 carbs each.
Unfortunately, the manufacturers of Splenda have licensing issues with
small companies creating liquid Splenda in syrup bases, so supplies have
now dwindled down to a trickle.

- Caffeine can trigger cravings, but if you are addicted to it via
coffee, taper off slowly to avoid excruciating caffeine withdrawal
headaches.

- Make a big batch of hard boiled eggs to keep in the fridge. When you
find yourself opening the fridge out of habit, you'll see them and
hopefully make the right choice. They are great to stave off hunger,
AND they're nutritious and versatile.

- Be sure to get enough fat. You can add olive oil and/or butter to all
kinds of things, have whipped cream or bacon (Trader Joe's carries a
brand that does not use sugar to cure it).

- Make your own Jello using unsweetened Kool-Aid, Splenda and gelatine.
Use 2 cups of liquid per each packet of gelatine.

- EXERCISE! If you can, do some kind of weight training. Muscles need
extra calories just to maintain them, so the more muscle you have, the
faster you'll burn calories even when you're just sitting around. My
body DEFINITELY changed for the better via exercise even though I had
not lost a significant amount of weight.

- Take measurements at the beginning so you can keep track. Sometimes
you won't see any change on the scale, but you will lose inches. In
fact, I can usually tell I've lost weight that way and the scale doesn't
reflect it for another few days or even a week. Besides, it's a great
feeling to make comparisons when you DO lose the inches :-)

- Don't get discouraged when your weight loss slows down after about 3
weeks. A good portion of weight lost during induction is water loss.
That's because, without a large amount of carbs in your diet, your body
will start to use up its emergency store of glycogen in the liver. Each
molecule of glycogen has about 4 molecules of water bound to it, so when
it's freed up to use as energy, the water is shed. After that, the body
will turn to fat to burn for energy, and the loss will most likely slow
to 1-2 lbs per week. Some people lose more, some less. I'm one of the
"less" :-( I usually lose only 2-4 lbs per month, if that, but I'm also
fairly sedentary when I'm not actively exercising. Also, the heavier
you are to begin with, the faster you'll lose weight comparatively
speaking, at least that seems to be the tendency. As you get closer to
your goal weight, the weight will come off more slowly.

- Check out the progress photos that people refer to. They can be VERY
inspirational! In fact, if you don't have a digital camera, GET one!
You can take photos in the privacy of your home by using the timer
feature and keep taking them until you get one that you are satisfied
with. It's a good way to gauge your progress. You don't have to share
them with ANYONE if you don't want to -- you can just tuck them away in
a folder on your PC. Like taking measurements, you'll be glad you did
this at the beginning, even if you don't like what you see at the
moment.

- If you can, take your scale to your doctor's office and compare your
weight on it vs. the balance beam. Trust me, you do NOT want to THINK
you are a certain weight only to be crushed later to find out you
actually weigh 10 lbs MORE than that the way a some of us have. It's
better to be brutally honest with yourself at the beginning and just
move on from that point.

- If you're a woman, your weight may go up during PMS. You probably
already know that, but keep it in mind. I chart my progress and can
always tell when it's about to hit due to that (I'm in peri-menopause,
so I NEVER know whether it's going to be 2 weeks or 2 months apart).
Many women lose the extra weight within a couple of days of starting
their period (usually referred to as TOM (time of month) here), but some
of us don't lose it until AFTER our TOM. No amount of logic, however,
can quite overcome the dismay this temporary gain causes, so try not to
let it get to you too much. This, too, shall pass (literally). Just
stay the course and wait it out! Actually, I found this to be very good
training for me to keep doing what I was doing and to be patient.

- Think outside the box. You don't HAVE to have eggs, sausages, bacon
or cereal for breakfast -- you can eat ANY kind of food (on plan, of
course) at ANY time of the day or night. Have leftover stew? It would
make a LOVELY breakfast! How about some chicken (I sometimes have hot
wings for breakfast)? A nice salad would work, too. Be creative!

- Be sure to get lots of fiber in your diet. Eating more protein and
fat than carbs can have a constipating effect. The combination of fiber
and water will hopefully keep things moving. Don't be surprised if you
aren't having bowel movements as often, though, since digestion takes a
little longer and there isn't as much volume as before.

- Read and post here often. Alt.support.diet.low-carb has been
INVALUABLE in helping me stay on track. And people are here pretty much
24 hours a day. By the time I get to bed, people in the UK are getting
up :-) I get SO many ideas here that never occurred to me before, and
LOTS of recipes. If you have questions, just ask. If YOU thought about
something, someone else probably did, too. Just having a place to brag
about or bemoan certain changes is GREAT, because we GET it ;-)

- The 3 numbers people tend to put in their sigs are starting
weight/current weight/target weight.

- Pertinent words and common misspellings: 1) Lose/Loose -- when you
LOSE weight, your clothing becomes LOOSE. 2) Weigh/Weight -- you WEIGH
yourself on a scale to determine your WEIGHT. 3) Atkins/Adkins -- there
is an ATKINS diet; there is no such word as "ADKINS" pertaining to low
carb.

- Ignore the trolls. They're fairly easy to spot. Some people can be
abrasive or abrupt, but they often mean well, so it's good to get to
know their style before deciding to filter them out (of course, that
pretty much applies to ALL newsgroups). Personally, I think life's too
short to waste on perpetual [censored]. JC Der Koenig is a resident troll
-- he WILL insult you, ESPECIALLY if it's one of your first posts. If
he doesn't, then he's having a VERY off-day or possibly has lost his
internet access. I recommend IGNORING him; DO NOT consider him to be a
representative of the newsgroup -- he apparently LOVES angry responses,
so replying to his nasty digs will only make him feel SPECIAL, and you
don't want THAT, do you?

After over 29 months of doing Atkins, I've learned to just keep staying
the course and it WILL pay off, even if it IS taking longer than I had
hoped for. I look and, more importantly ***FEEL*** SOOOOO much better
eating this way that I have no intention of ever going back to the way I
was eating before. My joint pains have eased considerably, my IBS
symptoms have COMPLETELY disappeared and I have WAY more energy. I have
only 4 lbs to go to get to my goal, but the difference in just my face
after 76 lbs lost is WONDERFUL! I look like ME again! This way of
eating (WOE) has given me something I thought I had lost: HOPE, and
HOPE is a POWERFUL thing to have!

--
Saffire
205/129/125
Atkins since 6/14/03
Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333

*** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- its appearance
in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

WOW, nice post... a lot of useful info. Thanks!

You're welcome!

--
Saffire
205/129/125
Atkins since 6/14/03
Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333

*** This post originated in alt.support.diet.low-carb -- its appearance
in any other forum is deceptive and unauthorized. ***

"rosie read n' post" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................

eat ONLY when your hungry!

This is absolutely critical. Learning to stop when you are sated is key to
whether or not you will succeed or fail on a low carb diet. It's not as easy
as it might seem (but it is possible).

rosie read n' post said:

another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................
eat ONLY when your hungry!

Which is quite contrary to claims that most folks can lose on
Atkins without ever getting hungry except 1) the initial carb
cravings of early Induction, 2) when moving up the carb ladder
and discovering a trigger food, 3) when moving up the carb
ladder and discovering a level of glycemic load food that
triggers hunger without being a specific single-food trigger, or
4) the week you find your CCLM during phase 3 Premaint.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" suggests
that eating to prevent hunger in the first place can lead to
fewer total calories eaten, mostly because waiting until
hungry erodes self-control.

So there's a trade-off. Using food to prevent hunger from
ever happening in the first place works better for many people,
but what if you start out overeating in the forst place and
don't know it because you never learned "sensible portion
sizes" in the first place? Makes for an interesting judgement
call.

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

rosie read n' post said:

another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................
eat ONLY when your hungry!

Which is quite contrary to claims that most folks can lose on
Atkins without ever getting hungry except 1) the initial carb
cravings of early Induction, 2) when moving up the carb ladder
and discovering a trigger food, 3) when moving up the carb
ladder and discovering a level of glycemic load food that
triggers hunger without being a specific single-food trigger, or
4) the week you find your CCLM during phase 3 Premaint.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" suggests
that eating to prevent hunger in the first place can lead to
fewer total calories eaten, mostly because waiting until
hungry erodes self-control.

So there's a trade-off. Using food to prevent hunger from
ever happening in the first place works better for many people,
but what if you start out overeating in the forst place and
don't know it because you never learned "sensible portion
sizes" in the first place? Makes for an interesting judgement
call.

To progress from the obese to a less obese stage, that may be all well
and good. It's a relearning of sorts, etc.

However, for most people, some serious hunger is an unavoidable
consequence if they want to get down to a lower BF% -- low carb or
not.

Why sugarcoat it?

Suze said:

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

rosie read n' post wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................
eat ONLY when your hungry!

Quoted message said:

Which is quite contrary to claims that most folks can lose on
Atkins without ever getting hungry except 1) the initial carb
cravings of early Induction, 2) when moving up the carb ladder
and discovering a trigger food, 3) when moving up the carb
ladder and discovering a level of glycemic load food that
triggers hunger without being a specific single-food trigger, or
4) the week you find your CCLM during phase 3 Premaint.

Quoted message said:

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" suggests
that eating to prevent hunger in the first place can lead to
fewer total calories eaten, mostly because waiting until
hungry erodes self-control.

Quoted message said:

So there's a trade-off. Using food to prevent hunger from
ever happening in the first place works better for many people,
but what if you start out overeating in the forst place and
don't know it because you never learned "sensible portion
sizes" in the first place? Makes for an interesting judgement
call.

To progress from the obese to a less obese stage, that may be all well
and good. It's a relearning of sorts, etc.

However, for most people, some serious hunger is an unavoidable
consequence if they want to get down to a lower BF% -- low carb or
not.

Why sugarcoat it?

I got to within 10 pounds of the ideal weight given to me by the
instructions in Protein Power, and I did it without getting hungry
except as above. In those last 10, I'll agree with you. Reading
the posts of others sometimes hunger is needed starting at 20
above goal but more often than not that's because they set their
goal 10 too low.

Something that exceeds what's written in the Atkins process -
gradually cut your portions without hunger. If you haven't been
hungry in a couple of weeks, cut your portions by maybe 100
calories per day or so. If you've been hungry several times in the
last week, increase your portions by maybe 100 calories per day
or so. This method would be slow but it could easily take most
closer to ideal than 10 without hunger.

So I don't agree that "serious" hunger is needed. I know none
is needed to get within 10-20 pounds and I am quite dubious that
the amount of hunger needed for the last 10-20 pounds would
count as "serious" hunger by cutting portions with the aim of losing
without any hunger or with the absolute minimum of hunger.

Losing by hunger alone may be how many plan types work, but
it isn't how low carbing works for most. With over 20 pounds to
lose there's the metabolic edge, but when in those last 10-20
pounds the biggest advantage that low carb has is most people
aren't hungry while in ketosis.

Then the question becomes what you're trading for the lower
hunger. Everything has its price. In this case the price is effort
at skillfully cutting exactly what matters. Carb grams holding at
CCLL, protein grams holding at PP min, then fat grams carefully
tapered. That takes skill and knowledge, as well as stepping out
in faith on how the plans work. Compared to simply cutting
portions and being more hungry. Which has the lower price? As
an engineer, experimenter and studier I have a different price
structure on that type of planning than many. It's why SBD is so
popular - less skill for nearly the same loss.

Another good point, Doug. I know I've had a fair number of discussions over
the years with dieters, lc and non-lc both, who insist they have an
"unusually large" appetite, and that they simply need to eat a *lot* of
food. I do believe, however, that once the hyperinsulin issues are
corrected, this is mostly habit and subject to conscious modification.
Sometimes it is as simple as realizing that now that you have lost 30
pounds, you can get by with 2 eggs and 2 strips of bacon for breakfast,
instead of your customary 4 amd 4. Or you may be able to get away
comfortably with half a can of tuna for the lunchtime tuna salad, instead of
the whole can.

I have always felt comforted with the "full tummy" feeling, but have learned
that so long as I get enough protein and some fat, I can acheive that with
lots of vegetables. I enjoy veggies anyway, so it's no hardship. I believe
that is why I lose better when I have a lot of low-starch vegetables in my
meals, because it helps me from overeating the higher-calorie-density
protein and fat foods.

And the importance of appetite reduction provided by ketosis can hardly be
overemphasized. Reducing carbohydrates helps, but for me I only really find
my appetite reduced to weight-loss levels when I keep carbs at around 60 g
or less.

HG

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Something that exceeds what's written in the Atkins process -
gradually cut your portions without hunger.

**********

Quoted message said:

Losing by hunger alone may be how many plan types work, but
it isn't how low carbing works for most. With over 20 pounds to
lose there's the metabolic edge, but when in those last 10-20
pounds the biggest advantage that low carb has is most people
aren't hungry while in ketosis.

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Losing by hunger alone may be how many plan types work, but
it isn't how low carbing works for most. With over 20 pounds to
lose there's the metabolic edge, but when in those last 10-20
pounds the biggest advantage that low carb has is most people
aren't hungry while in ketosis.

This is the case with me also. At first I ate much more than I had
previously (although I was still, of course, losing weight very quickly) -
both volume- and calorie-wise; then I lost nothing at all for about 2 months
this summer after the first 54# loss; now I have altered my ratios to about
75-80% of calories from fat, 5% from carbs, and the remainder being protein,
and find that my calorie intake has naturally dropped by nearly 1000/day
(from 2200-2400 down to 1200-1500, most days at the lower end). This
without effort, and only by following my appetite's dictates. And the loss
has restarted at a steady pound or 2 per week which should serve me well for
the long term. Of course, an added benefit has been the natural
disinclination to eat carby foods 🙂. I simply don't want them anymore, and
even find some of my formerly favorite foods repugnant. Which I find the
most interesting thing of all 🙂.

Sherry
364/297/195 (4/3/05)

"Suze" <suze_andersonATspamcopDOTnet@> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

rosie read n' post said:

another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................
eat ONLY when your hungry!

Which is quite contrary to claims that most folks can lose on
Atkins without ever getting hungry except 1) the initial carb
cravings of early Induction, 2) when moving up the carb ladder
and discovering a trigger food, 3) when moving up the carb
ladder and discovering a level of glycemic load food that
triggers hunger without being a specific single-food trigger, or
4) the week you find your CCLM during phase 3 Premaint.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" suggests
that eating to prevent hunger in the first place can lead to
fewer total calories eaten, mostly because waiting until
hungry erodes self-control.

So there's a trade-off. Using food to prevent hunger from
ever happening in the first place works better for many people,
but what if you start out overeating in the forst place and
don't know it because you never learned "sensible portion
sizes" in the first place? Makes for an interesting judgement
call.

To progress from the obese to a less obese stage, that may be all well
and good. It's a relearning of sorts, etc.

However, for most people, some serious hunger is an unavoidable
consequence if they want to get down to a lower BF% -- low carb or
not.

Why sugarcoat it?

Nonsense. If you go hungry you are depriving your body of nutrients and you
will lose muscle and your body fat percentage won't change much at all.
You're buying into the hype.

Sherry, I did want to mention that I think you've done extremely well. I was
looking at some old posts the other day and saw your pictures - what a
change they showed in just a short time period. I wondered if you had
updated them? They are quite the inspiration.

I went through that "repugnant" stage with some foods, but later on liking
for some of them did return, at least intermittently. I find the best thing
for keeping myself focused on lc is just categorizing in my mind things that
are "my food" and other things that are "not my food." So that my brain
kinda doesn't acknowledge a lot of things as actually being food. It's just
a conditioning process, but I've discovered that it requires frequent
reinforcement. When I lose that focus, and get overly busy with other life
factors, I have found myself really getting off track. This place really
helps keep me on track.

HG

"UsenetID" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is the case with me also. At first I ate much more than I had
previously (although I was still, of course, losing weight very quickly) -
both volume- and calorie-wise; then I lost nothing at all for about 2
months
this summer after the first 54# loss; now I have altered my ratios to
about
75-80% of calories from fat, 5% from carbs, and the remainder being
protein,
and find that my calorie intake has naturally dropped by nearly 1000/day
(from 2200-2400 down to 1200-1500, most days at the lower end). This
without effort, and only by following my appetite's dictates. And the
loss
has restarted at a steady pound or 2 per week which should serve me well
for
the long term. Of course, an added benefit has been the natural
disinclination to eat carby foods 🙂. I simply don't want them anymore,
and
even find some of my formerly favorite foods repugnant. Which I find the
most interesting thing of all 🙂.

Sherry
364/297/195 (4/3/05)

"Joe the Aroma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. If you go hungry you are depriving your body of nutrients and
you will lose muscle and your body fat percentage won't change much at
all. You're buying into the hype.

I think that's an over-broad generalization, Joe. I still haven't gotten
down to an "ideal" weight, so this isn't from personal experience, but just
about everybody here who has gotten down to that hallowed state - especially
women - has reported that they had to really, really cut back on calories
for the last 10-20 pounds, and that they found this resulted in a fair
amount of hunger, even on low carb.

OTOH, I have seen reports from people - usually guys, BTW, and ones doing a
lot of exercise of some sort - who didn't have that happen. Lucky ones!

Anyway, I think it's a YMMV thing. Certainly not everyone who experiences
hunger is causing starvation. There may be some muscle loss if hypocaloric
dieting is extended for any significant length of time, but using a low-carb
diet with adequate protein is probably the most protective. Body builders
realize this, from what I've read, and alternate hypercaloric (to bulk) and
hypocaloric (to cut, understanding that a bit of that bulk will be lost).
It's just the way it is, and if you want to get rid of the last pounds,
you'll have to live with it I guess.

HG

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sherry, I did want to mention that I think you've done extremely well. I

was

Quoted message said:

looking at some old posts the other day and saw your pictures - what a
change they showed in just a short time period. I wondered if you had
updated them? They are quite the inspiration.

I went through that "repugnant" stage with some foods, but later on liking
for some of them did return, at least intermittently. I find the best

thing

Quoted message said:

for keeping myself focused on lc is just categorizing in my mind things

that

Quoted message said:

are "my food" and other things that are "not my food." So that my brain
kinda doesn't acknowledge a lot of things as actually being food. It's

just

Quoted message said:

a conditioning process, but I've discovered that it requires frequent
reinforcement. When I lose that focus, and get overly busy with other life
factors, I have found myself really getting off track. This place really
helps keep me on track.

Thank you Hannah 🙂. I've also found that to be true although I've not
considered it in the same way before; some foods I eat, some I ignore.
There's not really a conscious battle of wills when the bowl of mashed
potatoes is passed around the table at a family gathering, I just pass it by
without thought and reach for the veggies instead. I don't know that it was
an effort on my part or not but at some point the carby foods simply became
a non-issue. The few times (I can count on one hand) that I've decided to
eat one of them intentionally they've been such a disappointment I've wished
I hadn't. Exception being the eggnog on Thanksgiving - lol...but I'm sure I
could make a lowcarb version of that as well, if I took the time to look up
a recipe 🙂.

I do have a new picture to add to my site, and also a few new recipes I've
created...I'll probably work on it this weekend when my daughter is at her
dad's.

Anyway - who'd've thunk that, just 8 short months ago, I'd have a totally
lowcarb kitchen and would WANT cauliflower dipped in ranch instead of a big
bowl of popcorn while I watch Becker reruns??? HAHA, not me! 🙂

Thanks again!

Sherry
lowcarb.owly.net
364/297/195 (4/3/05)

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Joe the Aroma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. If you go hungry you are depriving your body of nutrients and
you will lose muscle and your body fat percentage won't change much at
all. You're buying into the hype.

I think that's an over-broad generalization, Joe. I still haven't gotten
down to an "ideal" weight, so this isn't from personal experience, but
just about everybody here who has gotten down to that hallowed state -
especially women - has reported that they had to really, really cut back
on calories for the last 10-20 pounds, and that they found this resulted
in a fair amount of hunger, even on low carb.

If your weight loss suddenly slows, then you have damaged your metabolism.
Further lowering caloric intake will result in further weight loss, hell
just eating nothing will do. But you'll have a helluva time keeping that
weight off once you do take off those last pounds off.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I have seen reports from people - usually guys, BTW, and ones doing
a lot of exercise of some sort - who didn't have that happen. Lucky ones!

Anyway, I think it's a YMMV thing. Certainly not everyone who experiences
hunger is causing starvation. There may be some muscle loss if hypocaloric
dieting is extended for any significant length of time, but using a
low-carb diet with adequate protein is probably the most protective. Body
builders realize this, from what I've read, and alternate hypercaloric (to
bulk) and hypocaloric (to cut, understanding that a bit of that bulk will
be lost). It's just the way it is, and if you want to get rid of the last
pounds, you'll have to live with it I guess.

HG

"Joe the Aroma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If your weight loss suddenly slows, then you have damaged your metabolism.
Further lowering caloric intake will result in further weight loss, hell
just eating nothing will do. But you'll have a helluva time keeping that
weight off once you do take off those last pounds off.

I think that may be true, but almost everybody's weight loss slows as they
get close to goal, and the only way to lose the last pounds does seem to
involve cutting calories to some extent (or increasing energy expenditure
via exercise). There are people who manage to keep it off, too. But
maintenance is rarely easy, I've heard.

I've always liked calorie cycling, where you eat very low cal for one or
more days, then higher cal the next, then repeat that cycle. I know I lose
best when I do an informal version of this, and I had a coworker who was a
bodybuilding coach who said this really worked well for his clients who said
they could only lose if they cut calories to some ridiculous extent (those
clients were apparently always women).

HG

Quoting Joe the Aroma:

Quoted message said:

"Suze" <suze_andersonATspamcopDOTnet@> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, for most people, some serious hunger is an unavoidable
consequence if they want to get down to a lower BF% -- low carb or
not.

Why sugarcoat it?

Nonsense.

I'll just try that one out next time I disagree with anyone as a
general argument.

'Nonsense, you're wrong and I'm right'.

Not.

Quoted message said:

If you go hungry you are depriving your body of nutrients

Silly, generalistic, naturalistic fallacy type of argument.

Go post that sort of [censored] over on MFW and see what the few remaining
sane folks left over there say.

(Or feel free to crosspost this thread over there in your response. I
dare ya.)

Quoted message said:

and you
will lose muscle and your body fat percentage won't change much at all.

I don't think so.

Just about any fat loss program engaged in will involve some loss of
less mass, unfortunately.

Ways to minimize it would include paying attention to protein intake
in conjunction with weight training.

Quoted message said:

You're buying into the hype.

Nice throwaway line that doesn't really have meaning.

Explain what "hype" I'm buying into.
And be specific.

Quoting Suze:

Quoted message said:

Just about any fat loss program engaged in will involve some loss of
less mass, unfortunately.

Correction: that's gonna be "lean mass", not "less mass".

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

Suze said:

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

rosie read n' post wrote:

Quoted message said:

> another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................
> eat ONLY when your hungry!

Quoted message said:

Which is quite contrary to claims that most folks can lose on
Atkins without ever getting hungry except 1) the initial carb
cravings of early Induction, 2) when moving up the carb ladder
and discovering a trigger food, 3) when moving up the carb
ladder and discovering a level of glycemic load food that
triggers hunger without being a specific single-food trigger, or
4) the week you find your CCLM during phase 3 Premaint.

Quoted message said:

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" suggests
that eating to prevent hunger in the first place can lead to
fewer total calories eaten, mostly because waiting until
hungry erodes self-control.

Quoted message said:

So there's a trade-off. Using food to prevent hunger from
ever happening in the first place works better for many people,
but what if you start out overeating in the forst place and
don't know it because you never learned "sensible portion
sizes" in the first place? Makes for an interesting judgement
call.

To progress from the obese to a less obese stage, that may be all well
and good. It's a relearning of sorts, etc.

However, for most people, some serious hunger is an unavoidable
consequence if they want to get down to a lower BF% -- low carb or
not.

Why sugarcoat it?

I got to within 10 pounds of the ideal weight given to me by the
instructions in Protein Power, and I did it without getting hungry
except as above.

First off, you're a man (different hormonal profile). And I think
you've mentioned that you weren't able to maintain it.

Quoted message said:

In those last 10, I'll agree with you. Reading
the posts of others sometimes hunger is needed starting at 20
above goal but more often than not that's because they set their
goal 10 too low.

Something that exceeds what's written in the Atkins process -
gradually cut your portions without hunger. If you haven't been
hungry in a couple of weeks, cut your portions by maybe 100
calories per day or so. If you've been hungry several times in the
last week, increase your portions by maybe 100 calories per day
or so. This method would be slow but it could easily take most
closer to ideal than 10 without hunger.

So I don't agree that "serious" hunger is needed.

To get to a low bodyfat percentage*, sure it is for the majority of
folks.

I'm gonna arbitarily define this as sub 10% for men, sub 18 for women.

Quoted message said:

I know none is needed to get within 10-20 pounds

In your experience. Several folks would disagree, even those doing a
by the book LC plan.

Quoted message said:

and I am quite dubious that
the amount of hunger needed for the last 10-20 pounds would
count as "serious" hunger by cutting portions with the aim of losing
without any hunger or with the absolute minimum of hunger.

But you didn't reach or maintain that level. I am really not trying
to give you a hard time, but I am telling you, that *in my experience*
that is what is involved to reach it and maintain it long term (more
than three or four years).

Quoted message said:

Losing by hunger alone may be how many plan types work, but
it isn't how low carbing works for most.

I certainly don't dispute that LC can be a great tool for appetite
suppression -- initially.

But, for many, it wears off/leads to adaptations eventually. If it
didn't (ask yourself), why were you not able to lose and maintain all
of your desired fat loss without effort?

Quoted message said:

With over 20 pounds to
lose there's the metabolic edge, but when in those last 10-20
pounds the biggest advantage that low carb has is most people
aren't hungry while in ketosis.

I don't buy into this 'metabolic edge' from any sort of long-term
perspective. What I do buy into is that (1) there is a loss of water
weight/glycogen that initially helps out with the *scale* weight, and
(2) there is admittedly a slight initial metabolic edge for those
insulin resistant folks, but, (3) they will eventually adapt and have
to "pay it back" (i.e. work harder) to get that last bit of weight
off.

Quoted message said:

Then the question becomes what you're trading for the lower
hunger. Everything has its price. In this case the price is effort
at skillfully cutting exactly what matters. Carb grams holding
CCLL, protein grams holding at PP min, then fat grams carefully
tapered. That takes skill and knowledge, as well as stepping out
in faith on how the plans work. Compared to simply cutting
portions and being more hungry. Which has the lower price? As
an engineer, experimenter and studier I have a different price
structure on that type of planning than many. It's why SBD is so
popular - less skill for nearly the same loss.

Which has the lower price? To get down to a non-obese weight,
probably LC.

However, I stand behind my intial position that to get down to (and
maintain) a low bodyfat, your points aren't really as relevant.

I truly wish that they were.

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

Suze said:

Quoting Doug Freyburger:

Quoted message said:

rosie read n' post wrote:

Quoted message said:

> another great tip from the original ATKINS book....................
> eat ONLY when your hungry!

Quoted message said:

Which is quite contrary to claims that most folks can lose on
Atkins without ever getting hungry except 1) the initial carb
cravings of early Induction, 2) when moving up the carb ladder
and discovering a trigger food, 3) when moving up the carb
ladder and discovering a level of glycemic load food that
triggers hunger without being a specific single-food trigger, or
4) the week you find your CCLM during phase 3 Premaint.

Quoted message said:

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" suggests
that eating to prevent hunger in the first place can lead to
fewer total calories eaten, mostly because waiting until
hungry erodes self-control.

Quoted message said:

So there's a trade-off. Using food to prevent hunger from
ever happening in the first place works better for many people,
but what if you start out overeating in the forst place and
don't know it because you never learned "sensible portion
sizes" in the first place? Makes for an interesting judgement
call.

To progress from the obese to a less obese stage, that may be all well
and good. It's a relearning of sorts, etc.

However, for most people, some serious hunger is an unavoidable
consequence if they want to get down to a lower BF% -- low carb or
not.

Why sugarcoat it?

I got to within 10 pounds of the ideal weight given to me by the
instructions in Protein Power, and I did it without getting hungry
except as above.

First off, you're a man (different hormonal profile). And I think
you've mentioned that you weren't able to maintain it.

Quoted message said:

In those last 10, I'll agree with you. Reading
the posts of others sometimes hunger is needed starting at 20
above goal but more often than not that's because they set their
goal 10 too low.

Something that exceeds what's written in the Atkins process -
gradually cut your portions without hunger. If you haven't been
hungry in a couple of weeks, cut your portions by maybe 100
calories per day or so. If you've been hungry several times in the
last week, increase your portions by maybe 100 calories per day
or so. This method would be slow but it could easily take most
closer to ideal than 10 without hunger.

So I don't agree that "serious" hunger is needed.

To get to a low bodyfat percentage*, sure it is for the majority of
folks.

I'm gonna arbitarily define this as sub 10% for men, sub 18 for women.

Quoted message said:

I know none is needed to get within 10-20 pounds

In your experience. Several folks would disagree, even those doing a
by the book LC plan.

Quoted message said:

and I am quite dubious that
the amount of hunger needed for the last 10-20 pounds would
count as "serious" hunger by cutting portions with the aim of losing
without any hunger or with the absolute minimum of hunger.

But you didn't reach or maintain that level. I am really not trying
to give you a hard time, but I am telling you, that *in my experience*
that is what is involved to reach it and maintain it long term (more
than three or four years).

Quoted message said:

Losing by hunger alone may be how many plan types work, but
it isn't how low carbing works for most.

I certainly don't dispute that LC can be a great tool for appetite
suppression -- initially.

But, for many, it wears off/leads to adaptations eventually. If it
didn't (ask yourself), why were you not able to lose and maintain all
of your desired fat loss without effort?

Quoted message said:

With over 20 pounds to
lose there's the metabolic edge, but when in those last 10-20
pounds the biggest advantage that low carb has is most people
aren't hungry while in ketosis.

I don't buy into this 'metabolic edge' from any sort of long-term
perspective. What I do buy into is that (1) there is a loss of water
weight/glycogen that initially helps out with the *scale* weight, and
(2) there is admittedly a slight initial metabolic edge for those
insulin resistant folks, but, (3) they will eventually adapt and have
to "pay it back" (i.e. work harder) to get that last bit of weight
off.

Quoted message said:

Then the question becomes what you're trading for the lower
hunger. Everything has its price. In this case the price is effort
at skillfully cutting exactly what matters. Carb grams holding
CCLL, protein grams holding at PP min, then fat grams carefully
tapered. That takes skill and knowledge, as well as stepping out
in faith on how the plans work. Compared to simply cutting
portions and being more hungry. Which has the lower price? As
an engineer, experimenter and studier I have a different price
structure on that type of planning than many. It's why SBD is so
popular - less skill for nearly the same loss.

Which has the lower price? To get down to a non-obese weight,
probably LC.

However, I stand behind my intial position that to get down to (and
maintain) a low bodyfat, your points aren't really as relevant.

I truly wish that they were.