Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program

Eric said:

But Jesus Christ, who can afford "real food" that would taste
acceptable on a low-carb diet? Once you get into making low-carb
sauces and pounding down low-carb meals from the animal kingdom...holy
damn, the price tag mounts up! We're talking at least six dollars a
day if you try to eat 2000 calories in meat and fish with some level
of variety. That adds up to some serious bread, doesn't it?

You can get lots more variety in at a lower price tag if you use eggs as
a major source of protein. You can cook eggs a bazillion different ways.

Also, you add a LOT of variety with veggies too. There's a lot more
choices in nonstarchy vegetables than there are in meats.

Quoted message said:

Speaking of bread, once I get into "real food" and not food that
convinces me I'm on a diet when I'm on a diet, the separation in my
head between "I'm eating real food" and "I'm on a diet" quickly gets
blurry, especially in the first stages of a low-carb diet. Somehow,
when I'm consuming a cheesy medium-rare half-pound patty on a plate,
it reminds me that I'm missing a decent kaiser roll.

At the beginning, that makes sense. When I do induction, I eat pretty
much nothing but meat and eggs to get me over the hump.

But if you're going to low-carb for life, you need to think in terms of
real, every-day food you can live with long term.

Kaiser rolls never come back into it for me; the burger is *permanently*
bunless.

Quoted message said:

Based on these observations, I think it's far more likely that the
reason why losing weight is so frowned upon by nutritionists is that
you very simply can't tell people of all ages and backgrounds that
they should lose weight fast. Some older individual is going to kill
himself, and it's very easy for even one good lawsuit to establish
liability and wipe out the profitability of any diet plan.

You don't have to be old though. Google for "rabbit starvation".
Anyone can suffer serious deficiency diseases.

Quoted message said:

So I'm trying to eat about a thousand calories a day, with a less than
20% caloric intake from carbohydrates. I'm a bit worried about
vitamins, but as to keeping this going for something like three months
and dropping ninety pounds...now that's a challenge worth fighting
for. This is, with the simple addition of more protein, the Benoit-
study dietary ketosis diet detailed in Atkins. A peer-evaluated,
proven plan under the unflinching terms of the scientific method, as
Atkins goes on to show and I have scoured old medical journals to
confirm.

A multivitmain is decent insurance whether you're dieting or not. And
fish oil tablets if you don't eat fish regularly.

It really depends on how you do it... and the studies don't show
differences between someone who eats the same stuff, just small portions
of the carby stuff, vs. people who replace the starches with vegetables.

Personally, I eat so much more veggies low-carbing that I don't think of
it as a less nutritious way to eat, but a more nutritious way.

Quoted message said:

Now the issue of losing weight, when it comes to me, seems to be food
addiction before any other. Not genes, nor willpower, but addiction.
And the addict, caught in the throes of addiction, does not make
positive choices on a day-to-day basis, which is more or less the only
reason why he is typically called an "addict" and not a "role model."
The addict's brain does not function solely according to the dictates
of logic and reason, just like everyone else's, but in an overt way
that leads to a lack of socioeconomic success and personal
fulfillment, as defined by our society.

I don't find food addictive except carbs. Once past the
induction-stage, cravings don't hit much. During the withdrawal
process, I will overeat a lot, but not once the cravings subside.

The only real exception is nuts and nut butters; I can very easily
over-do those calorically. Strangely, something like almond flour,
which is the in-between state from whole nuts to nut butters, doesn't
spark the same sort of tendency to overeat.

Quoted message said:

I have seen this pattern of behavior over and over in myself, and I'd
be willing to bet anyone reading a low-carb newsgroup has as well.
When it comes to addiction, be it physical or psychological, there
comes a point where you simply HAVE TO STOP. The commitment you make
to stop is not about logic. It is about a furious "NO!" thrown out
into the everlasting, uncaring ether that exists despite you and your
puny self, a determination to not give in and do what is easy but
choose instead what is right.

The thing is, you can cut carbs to nada, but you can't cut food that
way. It's not like smoking or alcoholism, where going cold turkey works
cause you do have to eat.

The trick is to eat stuff that doesn't kickstart the addiction.

For me, bread and pasta are ALWAYS going to cause problems, regardless
of how long I go without them or how much weight I lose.

I just don't ever binge on tuna and salad. It doesn't happen.

You have to find out what foods work that way for yourself.

Quoted message said:

And that, for me, leads to the inescapable conclusion that I really
have to stop enjoying food, enjoying eating all I want, and
relentlessly rearrange up some of the wiring in my head to make things
lead to different places. I have tried other times in the past, and
half-finished the job, but the food demon has returned to climb once
again on my back and sink his relentless claws into my shoulders. I am
quite certain that the food demon will kill me, unless I finally
manage to throw him off and wrestle him into eternal submission.

IMO, an awful lot of it is biochemistry.

The type of hunger that kicks in when I eat carby foods is painful and
can wake me from a dead sleep, it takes a LOT of willpower to overcome that.

Whereas the hunger I experience on low-carb is such a minor feeling that
I often get distracted and forget to eat all day.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

But Jesus Christ, who can afford "real food" that would taste
acceptable on a low-carb diet? Once you get into making low-carb
sauces and pounding down low-carb meals from the animal kingdom...holy
damn, the price tag mounts up! We're talking at least six dollars a
day if you try to eat 2000 calories in meat and fish with some level
of variety. That adds up to some serious bread, doesn't it?

You can get lots more variety in at a lower price tag if you use eggs as
a major source of protein. You can cook eggs a bazillion different ways.

Also, you add a LOT of variety with veggies too. There's a lot more
choices in nonstarchy vegetables than there are in meats.

Quoted message said:

Speaking of bread, once I get into "real food" and not food that
convinces me I'm on a diet when I'm on a diet, the separation in my
head between "I'm eating real food" and "I'm on a diet" quickly gets
blurry, especially in the first stages of a low-carb diet. Somehow,
when I'm consuming a cheesy medium-rare half-pound patty on a plate,
it reminds me that I'm missing a decent kaiser roll.

At the beginning, that makes sense. When I do induction, I eat pretty
much nothing but meat and eggs to get me over the hump.

But if you're going to low-carb for life, you need to think in terms of
real, every-day food you can live with long term.

Kaiser rolls never come back into it for me; the burger is *permanently*
bunless.

Quoted message said:

Based on these observations, I think it's far more likely that the
reason why losing weight is so frowned upon by nutritionists is that
you very simply can't tell people of all ages and backgrounds that
they should lose weight fast. Some older individual is going to kill
himself, and it's very easy for even one good lawsuit to establish
liability and wipe out the profitability of any diet plan.

You don't have to be old though. Google for "rabbit starvation".
Anyone can suffer serious deficiency diseases.

Quoted message said:

So I'm trying to eat about a thousand calories a day, with a less than
20% caloric intake from carbohydrates. I'm a bit worried about
vitamins, but as to keeping this going for something like three months
and dropping ninety pounds...now that's a challenge worth fighting
for. This is, with the simple addition of more protein, the Benoit-
study dietary ketosis diet detailed in Atkins. A peer-evaluated,
proven plan under the unflinching terms of the scientific method, as
Atkins goes on to show and I have scoured old medical journals to
confirm.

A multivitmain is decent insurance whether you're dieting or not. And
fish oil tablets if you don't eat fish regularly.

It really depends on how you do it... and the studies don't show
differences between someone who eats the same stuff, just small portions
of the carby stuff, vs. people who replace the starches with vegetables.

Personally, I eat so much more veggies low-carbing that I don't think of
it as a less nutritious way to eat, but a more nutritious way.

Quoted message said:

Now the issue of losing weight, when it comes to me, seems to be food
addiction before any other. Not genes, nor willpower, but addiction.
And the addict, caught in the throes of addiction, does not make
positive choices on a day-to-day basis, which is more or less the only
reason why he is typically called an "addict" and not a "role model."
The addict's brain does not function solely according to the dictates
of logic and reason, just like everyone else's, but in an overt way
that leads to a lack of socioeconomic success and personal
fulfillment, as defined by our society.

I don't find food addictive except carbs. Once past the
induction-stage, cravings don't hit much. During the withdrawal
process, I will overeat a lot, but not once the cravings subside.

The only real exception is nuts and nut butters; I can very easily
over-do those calorically. Strangely, something like almond flour,
which is the in-between state from whole nuts to nut butters, doesn't
spark the same sort of tendency to overeat.

Quoted message said:

I have seen this pattern of behavior over and over in myself, and I'd
be willing to bet anyone reading a low-carb newsgroup has as well.
When it comes to addiction, be it physical or psychological, there
comes a point where you simply HAVE TO STOP. The commitment you make
to stop is not about logic. It is about a furious "NO!" thrown out
into the everlasting, uncaring ether that exists despite you and your
puny self, a determination to not give in and do what is easy but
choose instead what is right.

The thing is, you can cut carbs to nada, but you can't cut food that
way. It's not like smoking or alcoholism, where going cold turkey works
cause you do have to eat.

The trick is to eat stuff that doesn't kickstart the addiction.

For me, bread and pasta are ALWAYS going to cause problems, regardless
of how long I go without them or how much weight I lose.

I just don't ever binge on tuna and salad. It doesn't happen.

You have to find out what foods work that way for yourself.

Quoted message said:

And that, for me, leads to the inescapable conclusion that I really
have to stop enjoying food, enjoying eating all I want, and
relentlessly rearrange up some of the wiring in my head to make things
lead to different places. I have tried other times in the past, and
half-finished the job, but the food demon has returned to climb once
again on my back and sink his relentless claws into my shoulders. I am
quite certain that the food demon will kill me, unless I finally
manage to throw him off and wrestle him into eternal submission.

IMO, an awful lot of it is biochemistry.

The type of hunger that kicks in when I eat carby foods is painful and
can wake me from a dead sleep, it takes a LOT of willpower to overcome that.

Whereas the hunger I experience on low-carb is such a minor feeling that
I often get distracted and forget to eat all day.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

Nope: the only way that has ever worked for me to actually lose weight
is to dive in and fight the food demon head-on. Well-meaning attempts
to regulate weight loss at half-speed and three-quarters speed seem to
require the same amount of willpower for me as the off-the-wall diet I
am describing.

A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

OK, that's worked in the past to take the weight off.

But if you're having to do it again, maybe what you need is not so much
to learn how to take the weight off as how to KEEP it off.

Your current plan doesn't seem to address that issue at all. Skip the
kasier buns until you're lean, eat them again until you're fat, etc.
That's the yo-yo thing, and all studies show that's less healthy than
just staying fat in the first place - you'd be better off not dieting at
all.

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
[censored], fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

The advantage to losing it slow is you learn how to eat for the rest of
your life.

But hey, go fast if you want to - it's your body.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

Nope: the only way that has ever worked for me to actually lose weight
is to dive in and fight the food demon head-on. Well-meaning attempts
to regulate weight loss at half-speed and three-quarters speed seem to
require the same amount of willpower for me as the off-the-wall diet I
am describing.

A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

OK, that's worked in the past to take the weight off.

But if you're having to do it again, maybe what you need is not so much
to learn how to take the weight off as how to KEEP it off.

Your current plan doesn't seem to address that issue at all. Skip the
kasier buns until you're lean, eat them again until you're fat, etc.
That's the yo-yo thing, and all studies show that's less healthy than
just staying fat in the first place - you'd be better off not dieting at
all.

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
[censored], fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

The advantage to losing it slow is you learn how to eat for the rest of
your life.

But hey, go fast if you want to - it's your body.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

I intend to eat eight ounces of cheese every day, along with a multi-
vitamin and 23 grams of additional protein from a wonderfully cheap
source of whey protein powder that I found at my local supermarket.
Eight ounces of cheese will give me 64 grams of protein every day.

In the first week, at least, I'm going to mix the powder with a cup of
whole milk, which will add 6 more grams of protein but 12 more grams
of carbohydrates. I'm also going to suck down some psyllium husk
laxative, to the tune of one full tablespoon, which adds 12 grams of
carbohydrates. The cheese will give me 8 more grams of carbohydrates
for a grand total, in my first week, of:

12 (laxative) + 12 (milk) + 8 (cheese) + 2 (protein powder) = 34 grams
of carbyhydrates

While protein will be at:

0 (laxative) + 8 (milk) + 64 (cheese) + 23(powder) = 95 grams of
protein

I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda,
which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon.

Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein-
sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out
today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
see anything else that could kill me?

If you really want to do a PSMF, I suggest Lyle McDonald's book on the
topic. He knows a heck of a lot more about biochemistry than most diet
authors out there. While he points out that a PSMF isn't the healthiest
choice, he does discuss how to do it as healthily as possible. Sort of
like giving clean syringes to drug addicts. 😉

You're probably not getting enough protein here cause your body needs
more without carbs, as it converts protein to glucose in the absence of
dietary carb. The pysllium isn't providing glucose cause our bodies
don't break that type of fiber down. So your protein is probably low,
but Lyle's book witll address that for you.

Also, while the diet isn't as low in fat as it could be if you're really
wanting to cut the calories to the bone, you need to be eating the
essential fatty acids rather than just piles of cheese. You'd be a lot
better off with tuna than with cheese, less calories and more of the
essential fatty acids that you need. But at least add some fish oil
tablets to the diet.

Lyle's book is here: http://rapidfatloss.lylemcdonald.com/

And you're still going to have to figure out something to do about
maintenance as this is absolutely a short-term diet for maximizing fat
loss, not a way of eating for life.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

I intend to eat eight ounces of cheese every day, along with a multi-
vitamin and 23 grams of additional protein from a wonderfully cheap
source of whey protein powder that I found at my local supermarket.
Eight ounces of cheese will give me 64 grams of protein every day.

In the first week, at least, I'm going to mix the powder with a cup of
whole milk, which will add 6 more grams of protein but 12 more grams
of carbohydrates. I'm also going to suck down some psyllium husk
laxative, to the tune of one full tablespoon, which adds 12 grams of
carbohydrates. The cheese will give me 8 more grams of carbohydrates
for a grand total, in my first week, of:

12 (laxative) + 12 (milk) + 8 (cheese) + 2 (protein powder) = 34 grams
of carbyhydrates

While protein will be at:

0 (laxative) + 8 (milk) + 64 (cheese) + 23(powder) = 95 grams of
protein

I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda,
which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon.

Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein-
sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out
today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
see anything else that could kill me?

If you really want to do a PSMF, I suggest Lyle McDonald's book on the
topic. He knows a heck of a lot more about biochemistry than most diet
authors out there. While he points out that a PSMF isn't the healthiest
choice, he does discuss how to do it as healthily as possible. Sort of
like giving clean syringes to drug addicts. 😉

You're probably not getting enough protein here cause your body needs
more without carbs, as it converts protein to glucose in the absence of
dietary carb. The pysllium isn't providing glucose cause our bodies
don't break that type of fiber down. So your protein is probably low,
but Lyle's book witll address that for you.

Also, while the diet isn't as low in fat as it could be if you're really
wanting to cut the calories to the bone, you need to be eating the
essential fatty acids rather than just piles of cheese. You'd be a lot
better off with tuna than with cheese, less calories and more of the
essential fatty acids that you need. But at least add some fish oil
tablets to the diet.

Lyle's book is here: http://rapidfatloss.lylemcdonald.com/

And you're still going to have to figure out something to do about
maintenance as this is absolutely a short-term diet for maximizing fat
loss, not a way of eating for life.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein-
sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out
today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
see anything else that could kill me?

Lite Salt is the cheapest way to supplement potassium.

If I were doing your diet (I'd be more likely to be doing Lyle's
though), I'd seriously add a multivitamin and some fish oil also.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein-
sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out
today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
see anything else that could kill me?

Lite Salt is the cheapest way to supplement potassium.

If I were doing your diet (I'd be more likely to be doing Lyle's
though), I'd seriously add a multivitamin and some fish oil also.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Eric said:

A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

<Snipped to the Core of the Matter>

I'm not gonna comment on the cheese, Kool-Aid, and laxative
diet. It's probably not sustainable, was clearly not designed to be
so, and will therefore, not work in the long term.

The thing that I'm going to talk to is more about the mentality.
Since you are here, are NC-17/X rated in your posting, and
getting the ++ on your scale, I am going to suggest that you
probably don't have much of an idea of what works for you.

Yes, this pound a day, every day, approach has moved the
scale for you in the past, but equally clearly, it has also moved
the scale back up, and probably with interest, once you moved
on from it. Clearly, that's not what you really want, otherwise,
you'd just do it, and not be on usenet. There's the beauty of
usenet.

IFF: you are serious about making real changes and ending
your double life (whatever: Billy Joel is right about the Stranger,
all lyrics, all situations), you are going to have to find something
sustainable. That is, by necessity, going to be slower. Probably
1/7th of the speed of a pound a day, every day. Maybe slower.
But that's the price you pay for the worthwhile changes. On the
upside, it's probably gonna be easier than doing flaxseed,
kool-aid (I cannot think of many things more useless to consume)
and cheese (I love cheese, but 8 oz a day would make the flax
something like a necessity, and lots of people stall on cheese
anyway).

At any rate, I wish you the best. I'm sorry this may be harsh. But
what you're doing to yourself, both food wise and mentality wise is
probably not the most useful course for you.

MY OFF-THE-WALL DIET, AS DOCUMENTED BY ATKINS

November 11, 2007

Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
remember why I hate digital scales.

I finally went down to my basement and unearthed my copy of Atkins.

It's:

_Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution_
Robert C. Atkins
Avon Books, NY 1992
First Avon printing: January 1997
ISBN 0-380-72739-3

Back to the Benoit study:

Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure,
it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried
to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?), my
carbohydrate intake will drop to exactly 10 grams (cheese, 8 grams and
protein powder, 2 grams). My caloric intake will be more or less
exactly right on target, although I'll be eating a lot less fat and a
lot more protein. This corrects (maybe) the problem detailed in the
footnote on page 234, that "the diet is deficient in protein and is
therefore not suitable for long-term use, unless amino acid
supplements are given periodically."

Will the performance of the diet significantly change due to the fact
that I am ingesting less fat and more protein? We are in virgin
territory here. I'm a bit worried, but not much.

Will I be unable to maintain my potassium levels without significant
supplementation? In the Benoit ketogenic study (page 70), dieters did,
but I am not all that optimistic.

And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
make two quarts, the Splenda costs 20 cents and the unsweetened mix
packet goes for 24 cents. When a 20-oz bottle of spring water costs as
much as a 20-oz bottle of soda, and if you buy by the two-or-three
liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think
outside the box.

Don't get me wrong, I love diet soda and I'll suck down plenty on this
diet, but when 64 ounces of Kool-Aid costs less than ten ounces of the
more socially acceptable bottle of spring water or diet soda, I've
gotta go with my childish urges and reach for the smiling pitcher.

I should also mention that for the last seven years, I've been abroad
and there was no Kool-Aid to be had where I was, sugar-free or
otherwise. My current wave of enthusiasm for the stuff must be
examined in that light to be appreciated as something other than a
plain and simple Peter-Pan neurosis.

So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about
my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
day for a long time.

I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
diet. It is also a part of my experience that hunger is indeed a
great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I
mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran
dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry.

My diet, as I described it at first, just looks off-the-wall because
Atkins and the rest of the low-carb crowd tries to seduce you with
breathy descriptions of delicious, rich foods loaded in protein and
fat, steering your attention away from the annoying, inconvenient fact
that no matter what you do, if you've been fat for a long time, you
can't eat until you feel full and lose weight. Metabolic advantage,
boundless ketogenic energy supply, that's all little more than bull,
in my experience. The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low
calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good
bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its
attitude regarding portion size.

* * *

em (Mike), I've been reading your posts elsewhere the group and the
gentle suggestions you've been getting to try to help you cut down on
the backsliding, by focusing you on reducing your caloric intake. Like
you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and
appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen),
I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait
three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight
loss!

What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's
got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people
whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise
of will and behavioral modification. The book abounds with exhortions
to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural
insulin appetite regulators in his 15,000 clinical patients, so it's
easy to miss the one and only place where Atkins deals with poor
gluttons like me, on page 231 ("For you the most effective strategy
might be to say to yourself , 'I'll eat just enough that I'm
physically free of intolerable hunger signals, and no more.'"😉.

Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is, and
I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese
today and having drunk a cup of milk, and nothing else. I will tell
you that at the moment I am better prepared psychologically to
tolerate the hunger signals that I feel right now than the many times
I've woken up ravenous after having eaten a large pot of mac-and-
cheese the night before. Hunger is a largely relative, psychosomatic
phenomenon in the compulsive overeater, because the wiring upstairs is
more screwed up than Atkins or anyone else wants to admit.

I am damned certain that if I start eating right now, and I have a
large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it
until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting. Atkins's
promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page
126) means nothing to me, and I feel comfortable assuming that this
giant hole in the notion that a low-carb intake leads automatically to
a self-regulating appetite has been something of a sticking point for
many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and-
more-denied voyage to Slenderville.

Eric said:

Like
you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and
appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen),
I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait
three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight
loss!

Probably the lack of fat for its satiation character would be the
leading cause of this enormous meat eating.

Personally, if I ate that much meat, I'd want to have a club lying
around with knife and fork being optional.

Quoted message said:

What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's
got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people
whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise
of will and behavioral modification.

He tells you about 8 or 9 times to "Eat till satisfied, not satiated".
It isn't a minor point in his more recent plans.

Your meat binges above are eating till satiation.

Quoted message said:

The book abounds with exhortions
to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural
insulin appetite regulators in his 15,000 clinical patients, so it's
easy to miss the one and only place where Atkins deals with poor
gluttons like me, on page 231 ("For you the most effective strategy
might be to say to yourself , 'I'll eat just enough that I'm
physically free of intolerable hunger signals, and no more.'"😉.

Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is,

Eating 6 pound of meat per day just might qualify, or at least serve as
an alternate intrepretation of the expression.

Quoted message said:

and
I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese
today and having drunk a cup of milk, and nothing else. I will tell
you that at the moment I am better prepared psychologically to
tolerate the hunger signals that I feel right now than the many times
I've woken up ravenous after having eaten a large pot of mac-and-
cheese the night before. Hunger is a largely relative, psychosomatic
phenomenon in the compulsive overeater, because the wiring upstairs is
more screwed up than Atkins or anyone else wants to admit.

I am damned certain that if I start eating right now, and I have a
large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it
until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting.

This is eating till satiated, not eating till satisfied.

Quoted message said:

Atkins's
promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page
126) means nothing to me, and I feel comfortable assuming that this
giant hole in the notion that a low-carb intake leads automatically to
a self-regulating appetite has been something of a sticking point for
many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and-
more-denied voyage to Slenderville.

Eating a fat filled dessert is more satisfying than eating a sweet one
with modest carbohydrates.

You probably need to listen to someone like Roger talk about the role of
fats in the low carb diet. Atkins didn't really do a good job of
discussing this. Doug will have his own position to tell you.

Again, a fat filled dessert is more satisfying to me than a sweet one.

No scale can accurately determine your bodyfat content.

As for something to drink, nothing beats water, straight from the tap.

Eric wrote:
| MY OFF-THE-WALL DIET, AS DOCUMENTED BY ATKINS
|
| November 11, 2007
|
| Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat 40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
| days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
| remember why I hate digital scales.
|
| I finally went down to my basement and unearthed my copy of Atkins.
|
| It's:
|
| _Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution_
| Robert C. Atkins
| Avon Books, NY 1992
| First Avon printing: January 1997
| ISBN 0-380-72739-3
|
| Back to the Benoit study:
|
| Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
| diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
| but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure,
| it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried
| to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?), my
| carbohydrate intake will drop to exactly 10 grams (cheese, 8 grams and
| protein powder, 2 grams). My caloric intake will be more or less
| exactly right on target, although I'll be eating a lot less fat and a
| lot more protein. This corrects (maybe) the problem detailed in the
| footnote on page 234, that "the diet is deficient in protein and is
| therefore not suitable for long-term use, unless amino acid
| supplements are given periodically."
|
| Will the performance of the diet significantly change due to the fact
| that I am ingesting less fat and more protein? We are in virgin
| territory here. I'm a bit worried, but not much.
|
| Will I be unable to maintain my potassium levels without significant
| supplementation? In the Benoit ketogenic study (page 70), dieters did,
| but I am not all that optimistic.
|
| And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
| beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
| make two quarts, the Splenda costs 20 cents and the unsweetened mix
| packet goes for 24 cents. When a 20-oz bottle of spring water costs as
| much as a 20-oz bottle of soda, and if you buy by the two-or-three
| liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think
| outside the box.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I love diet soda and I'll suck down plenty on this
| diet, but when 64 ounces of Kool-Aid costs less than ten ounces of the
| more socially acceptable bottle of spring water or diet soda, I've
| gotta go with my childish urges and reach for the smiling pitcher.
|
| I should also mention that for the last seven years, I've been abroad
| and there was no Kool-Aid to be had where I was, sugar-free or
| otherwise. My current wave of enthusiasm for the stuff must be
| examined in that light to be appreciated as something other than a
| plain and simple Peter-Pan neurosis.
|
| So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about
| my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
| day for a long time.
|
| I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
| control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
| diet. It is also a part of my experience that hunger is indeed a
| great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I
| mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran
| dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry.
|
| My diet, as I described it at first, just looks off-the-wall because
| Atkins and the rest of the low-carb crowd tries to seduce you with
| breathy descriptions of delicious, rich foods loaded in protein and
| fat, steering your attention away from the annoying, inconvenient fact
| that no matter what you do, if you've been fat for a long time, you
| can't eat until you feel full and lose weight. Metabolic advantage,
| boundless ketogenic energy supply, that's all little more than bull,
| in my experience. The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
| have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
| on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low
| calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good
| bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its
| attitude regarding portion size.
|
| * * *
|
| em (Mike), I've been reading your posts elsewhere the group and the
| gentle suggestions you've been getting to try to help you cut down on
| the backsliding, by focusing you on reducing your caloric intake. Like
| you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and
| appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen),
| I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait
| three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight
| loss!
|
| What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's
| got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people
| whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise
| of will and behavioral modification. The book abounds with exhortions
| to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural
| insulin appetite regulators in his 15,000 clinical patients, so it's
| easy to miss the one and only place where Atkins deals with poor
| gluttons like me, on page 231 ("For you the most effective strategy
| might be to say to yourself , 'I'll eat just enough that I'm
| physically free of intolerable hunger signals, and no more.'"😉.
|
| Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is, and
| I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese
| today and having drunk a cup of milk, and nothing else. I will tell
| you that at the moment I am better prepared psychologically to
| tolerate the hunger signals that I feel right now than the many times
| I've woken up ravenous after having eaten a large pot of mac-and-
| cheese the night before. Hunger is a largely relative, psychosomatic
| phenomenon in the compulsive overeater, because the wiring upstairs is
| more screwed up than Atkins or anyone else wants to admit.
|
| I am damned certain that if I start eating right now, and I have a
| large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it
| until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting. Atkins's
| promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page
| 126) means nothing to me, and I feel comfortable assuming that this
| giant hole in the notion that a low-carb intake leads automatically to
| a self-regulating appetite has been something of a sticking point for
| many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and-
| more-denied voyage to Slenderville.

BlueBrooke said:

My husband and teenage son don't have a weight problem and they aren't
diabetic -- but they eat this way, too. None of feel "deprived." I
keep some things in the house that they really like, but I don't eat,
such as oatmeal, whole grain bread, fresh fruit. I don't get any
complaints. My hubby is an OTR truck driver and looks forward to
coming home and eating "real food" -- which is easier to find in truck
stops than it used to be, but it's still hard to eat on the road. As
a matter of fact, I gained most of my weight when I was pregnant with
my son, and the rest of it while I was driving a truck.

I used to drive also! And hubby still does. Whatdoyaknow!

I used to carry lowcarb tortillas to rewrap sandwiches on the road so
could buy at nearly any fast food type joint if needul. But I mostly
hit Walmarts, usually near the interstate and parking available, and
bought whole rotisserie chickens, salad ingredients, cottage cheese and
yogurt. Lived on that stuff when I drove. Plus gobs of coffee, of course.

My hubby isn't diabetic either - I send him off with salad, a few frozen
meals he reheats in those "lunchbox" heaters, and home-canned soups like
ham and split pea, baked beans, etc. I also send lots of canned fruit,
dried fruit and juice, nuts and nut butters, lunch meats and cheese. He
only eats junk on the road if he chooses cause the truck is loaded with
good stuff.

Still, he also looks forward to coming home to "real food," which is all
low-carb stuff cause that's mostly what gets cooked around here. For
instance, we had a crockpot beef stew last time he was home and the
morning before he left, I did a tomato & cheddar omelet.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Hey everyone, thank you for your responses. There have been some
wonderfully helpful, intelligent, supportive, constructively-critical
individuals writing in this thread, far more than I could have hoped.

I don't have time to respond to every post here, but the two most
helpful suggestions must be recognized. Many thanks must go to Jackie
Patti both for her eggs suggestion (I'll be following that soon!) and
her Salt-Lite recommendation (330 mg of Potassium per serving!). We
disagree on our biochemistry versus psychosomatic understanding of
hunger, but I have my reasons for that.

Hollywood, my NC-17 comment was for people to understand that all
kinds of things might pop up in this thread that they might not want
their children to see. It was not an attempt to titillate, nor will I
go out of my way to be offensive. There are 3000+ members in this
group and some of the things that I'm going to share I wouldn't tell
my own children about, if I had any. And you were not at all harsh:
honesty is much appreciated.

FOB, damn straight, no scale can properly determine bodyfat content,
as I am sure we will quickly see as I continue to post my readings. I
like water quite a bit, so I might just ditch the Kool-Aid, but let me
get my fill, for now, OK? It's a lot easier swilling lots of bug juice
than lots of water: I've got one last little pleasure to ingest every
day...don't take it away!

There is some health and eating history in my family that I really
should share now, at the beginning of this thread. My father had a
weight problem. When my dad was in his thirties, he started taking a
drug called Micronaise for his high blood pressure. Ten years later,
he was diagnosed with diabetes, which seems now to be a common side
effect of the drug (who knew?). He hung on for 20 more years, but
succumbed at 63, disabled, half-blind, and prone to almost any
infection under the sun -- it was pneumonia (during the SARS epidemic,
and I have my suspicions, but no country in Europe wanted to admit
that their birds were contaminated, so there was no investigation was
done, and there was no way we could make one happen) that put him in a
coma and a hospital infection that carried him off.

My brother is overweight and has high blood pressure. Unlike me, he
only put on weight when he went away to college. He's spent the last
12 years trying to lose the hundred plus pounds he put on, dieting the
low-carb way. My mother is overweight, but that's only been since her
30s, and her own hypertension didn't manifest until her 50s. One of my
grandmothers was chronically obese all her life (on my father's side).
The other (mother's side) is still alive, hypertensive, and has been
overweight since at least her 40s. One of my grandfathers died in his
sleep at 45 from a stroke, before I was born (mother's side, he was
not overweight). My grandfather on my father's side was also not
overweight: he was a semi-professional soccer player with no
significant health problems until bone cancer got him at 73.

So, in response to those who have mentioned it, yes, there is indeed a
clear and present history of Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure
in my family. On the other hand, some of these people lived in a
country and a time when there wasn't much in the way of health care,
and I really don't have all the answers. The urban area where my
father's father lived is quickly becoming a recognized and infamous
cancer cluster, usually ascribed to the high-voltage power lines that
run 20 feet from the balconies on the streets. Let me re-qualify that:
the lines themselves run at eye level 20 feet from the balconies --
I'm not talking about the base of the posts that hold them up. In the
years that I also lived there, I could easily hear the lines humming
at night. There is very little doubt in my mind that this contributed
to my grandfather's early death, but of course, I can't prove it.

So, with this in mind, good night, and thank you all for contributing.
I'll get up tomorrow, check my stats, finish tomorrow's article, and
post away.

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

Quoted message said:

THE FIRST DAY

November 10, 12:38 pm

Well, I wrote my first post yesterday, so I'd better pony up today
with the particulars of my diet. First of all, morning weight-in. I
was at 279.0, 38.0% fat and 45.5% water. The scale gave me two pluses,
which means that I am OBESE. Something must be done, or I feel there's
a very real chance that the next step will be bariatric surgery. I
would like to avoid that, if I could.

I intend to eat eight ounces of cheese every day, along with a multi-
vitamin and 23 grams of additional protein from a wonderfully cheap
source of whey protein powder that I found at my local supermarket.
Eight ounces of cheese will give me 64 grams of protein every day.

In the first week, at least, I'm going to mix the powder with a cup of
whole milk, which will add 6 more grams of protein but 12 more grams
of carbohydrates. I'm also going to suck down some psyllium husk
laxative, to the tune of one full tablespoon, which adds 12 grams of
carbohydrates. The cheese will give me 8 more grams of carbohydrates
for a grand total, in my first week, of:

12 (laxative) + 12 (milk) + 8 (cheese) + 2 (protein powder) = 34 grams
of carbyhydrates

While protein will be at:

0 (laxative) + 8 (milk) + 64 (cheese) + 23(powder) = 95 grams of
protein

I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda,
which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon.

Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein-
sparing fast. I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out
today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
see anything else that could kill me?

Why do you think you need to do this for weigh loss? Why not just control
your carb intake which will lower your appetite, and start an regular
execise program built around walking at first, weight lifting later, and
then some stationary biking?

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

Apparently, this has NOT worked for you.

Quoted message said:

Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a
less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely
new, a balanced weight-loss program that leads me by the hand down the
road to weight loss bit-by-bit, come on, honey, you can do it, rah,
rah, rah...

If you do the same thing you've always done, you'll get the same thing you
always got.

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
[censored], fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

Well, your way doesn't seem to be working for you, Eric.

Quoted message said:

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda,
which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon.

What kind of Splenda are you using that will only give you 1 gram of
carb per half gallon? Are you only using one packet?

Cheri

Roger Zoul said:

Eric said:

A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

Apparently, this has NOT worked for you.

Of course it hasn't. Aiming for the physically impossible never
does work. Stored fat is 3500-4000 calories per pound. Human
metabolism is typically closer to half that, so losing a pound a
day means you need to excerise so fiercely you more than
double your caloric output for the day and somehow avoid
starvation mode. Who runs daily marathons to be able to lose
fat that fast?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a
less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely
new, a balanced weight-loss program that leads me by the hand down the
road to weight loss bit-by-bit, come on, honey, you can do it, rah,
rah, rah...

If you do the same thing you've always done, you'll get the same thing you
always got.

The all-or-nothing approach yields nothing well in excess of
90% of the time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
[censored], fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

Well, your way doesn't seem to be working for you, Eric.

Guaranteed regain. Doing radical stuff is SO tempting, but it
never keeps the weight off.

Cheri' gserviceatinreachdotcom said:

Quoted message said:

"Eric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda,
which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon.

What kind of Splenda are you using that will only give you 1 gram of
carb per half gallon? Are you only using one packet?

Cheri

Yes, I do use one packet. The product is called Splenda Quick Pack,
and one packet of it equals a cup of sugar. The whole packet weights 4
grams. The product code is 2277620051.

But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition
information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states
that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't
be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of
carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it
out completely.

Eric said:

But thank you for making me look at the label again. The nutrition
information is for a serving, which is 1/40th of the packet, states
that it contains less than 1 gram of total carbyhydrates, so I can't
be absolutely sure that I'm getting less than 4 total grams of
carbyhydrates per packet. I may have to take FOB's advice and cut it
out completely.

Sucralsoe forbids anyone to resell the stuff (except as an ingredient in
products) as it doesn't want it's licensees to compete with it - and
they don't sell a product without buling agents.

You can buy a liquid form of sucralose with no carbs at all here:
http://www.sweetzfree.com/ - but she has limited amounts and only sells
at certain times and only takes Paypal.

You can get a sucralose-sweetened "fiber supplement" with no net carbs
from netrition here:
http://www26.netrition.com/nutragenics_fiberfit_page.html

Stevia comes in packages without bulking agents added or in liquid form
also; it's mostly what I use myself as I can pick it up at my grocery store.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/